Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will just take a few minutes of the Senate's time to comment on the set of issues that we will be spending much time on over the weeks ahead, those specifically related to our budget, the reconciliation legislation, which will also include legislation to reduce the tax burden on Americans, and the whole issue that surrounds that concerning the economy of our country. As I traveled throughout my State during last year's campaign and as I have traveled since that campaign, I have heard Americans and Michiganites in particular tell me two things. Both of the things they have told me I believe are included in and really are the centerpieces of the budget that we are working to achieve here in the U.S. Senate. The first thing they tell us is that they want a budget that is in balance. Americans and people in my State are frustrated by the fact that the U.S. Congress has gone a quarter of a century without bringing the budget into balance. They have to do that in their families. Most of our States and our local communities have to balance their budgets. The American people are frustrated when Washington cannot do the same thing, when we cannot bring ourselves to establish priorities, to set an agenda that allows us to spend no more than we take in. People in my State also want a budget that is balanced and that is balanced legitimately. They are tired of fancy bookkeeping in Washington, bookkeeping which allows us to think we are doing better than we really are. That is why, I think, many people in my State applauded the President of the United States when he came to Congress not too long ago and, with bipartisan encouragement, said that we should use the statistics and the revenue estimates and the budget figures of the Congressional Budget Office at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to make determinations as to where our Federal Government's deficit was. Interestingly, of course, we now have a slight change in direction here in Washington. Here in the Congress, we have stuck to the ideal of balancing the budget and we have used legitimate statistics compiled by the Congressional Budget Office in calculating our budget to make sure it would be in balance based on the accurate readings of the CBO. Unfortunately, now, as the actual rubber hits the road, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we have a detour. There what we see is a diversion away from the use of CBO statistics, a diversion away from the idea of using the same budgeting calculations that are used on Capitol Hill, and instead a throwback to days gone by when statistics that are used in rosy scenarios, to balance the budget not with tough choices and setting priorities, but rather making unrealistic estimates as to the economy's growth and unrealistic estimates as to the needs for various promises and a variety of things allowing to balance the budget through fancy bookkeeping. I have to ask today, Mr. President, why has this occurred? Why have we moved backward, and why has the White House chosen this course of action? Most people know the answer is simple. Without making those kinds of calculations that only can be made inside the Office of Management and Budget, tough choices would have to be made. Politically unpopular choices would have to be made. I ask another question today as well: Where was the balanced budget fervor in the White House earlier this year? Why has it come about so late in the game? Again, I suggest that it is more politics than it is public policy objectives. Indeed, I sit on the Budget Committee, and earlier this year, in the spring, we had several representatives of the administration come before us to discuss the President's budget. When they did, of course, that original budget was not in balance. It did not project a balance in years 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. I asked, did you ever go through the exercise within the administration of coming up with a balanced budget or a budget that would reach balance in 7 years, recognizing that you might have done it, and concluded, for whatever reason, not to offer it because you did not want to establish the priorities that would be required to balance the budget? To my surprise, I was told that no one had ever gone through the exercise. This is as recently as the spring and, indeed, the budget we had been offered by the White House, by the administration, was the only budget that had been put together. It makes me very suspicious, now, as we come to the end of this process, that suddenly we are told there is a budget, suddenly we are told there is a commitment to a balanced budget, and [[Page S 15269]] suddenly we are told the CBO numbers are no longer the ones that will be used to attain that budget. It leads me to believe that we are basically being told these things as we come upon an election year in which a central part of the debate in America will be whether or not the American Government should spend no more money than it takes in. Balance the budget and do it in a way that is credible and legitimate, is one thing I hear in Michigan. The other thing I hear in my State is that people want to be able to keep more of what they earn and that, in particular, the middle-class families of my State want to be able to keep more of what they earn. Here, in Washington, inside the beltway, in many of our committees and on the floor of the Senate itself as well as on the House side of the Capitol Building, we are told by people who purport to represent constituencies back in their States that there is no demand for reductions in taxes in America, that this desire to reduce taxes is somehow a myth created by people on our side of the political aisle for whatever purpose, I guess, happens to be convenient at the time. I just want to know what constituencies those who claim Americans do not want a tax cut represent, because I cannot go to any part of my State without being told by people how hard it is to make ends meet in America, and in Michigan today. What people tell me is not that they wish somehow Government would intrude on their job site or their business or their community and start dictating what salaries they should earn. They do not tell me that. They do not tell me they want to see Washington begin to create some kind of central economy management system here inside the beltway. What they tell me is, if you will just let me keep a few more dollars that I earn in my paycheck, I would feel a lot better. It is interesting to me to hear people tell us they do not hear any cries back in their State for tax relief when, at the same time, many of the very same Members of Congress come to the floor, bringing charts with them, to talk about the so-called middle-class squeeze that middle-class, hard-working, average American families are feeling today. Why is that middle-class squeeze being felt? The answer is quite simple. It is because American families--hard-working families, where people go out to work every day, and in some cases where more than one person is in the work force, and they work very hard--find at the end of the week or the end of the quarter or the end of the month they do not have as much money left after withholding and the payment of taxes as they need to make ends meet. So, I think it is very disingenuous to, on the one hand, decry the fate of the middle class because of the difficult time middle-class Americans are having making ends meet and at the same time claim middle-class families do not want a tax cut. The fact is, if we reduce the taxes on families in this country there will be less of a squeeze, in particular less of a squeeze on the middle class. In my judgment, those are simply mutually exclusive positions. I have a very hard time believing that in the constituencies of other Members of this body or in the House there is not the same yearning for an opportunity to attain the American dream, more chance of people keeping what they earn, that I hear from the constituents that I represent. Here in the Senate we are trying. We tried during the budget resolution debates and we will try again in the next few weeks to deliver on commitments we made to our constituents from one end of this country to the other, our commitments to bring the budget into balance and to do so with a legitimate, credible budget and at the same time allow hard-working, middle-class families to keep more of what they earn. The alternative to that is business as usual. The alternative to that is more fancy, funny bookkeeping. The alternative to that is big Government in Washington calling more shots, making more decisions that affect the lives of our families. So, as the debate proceeds, I hope, as people hear these arguments that we cannot move to a balanced budget or that we cannot do it in 7 years or we cannot have a tax cut, they will reflect on the fact that the people making those arguments are the same people who have tended to be in charge for the last 40 years here in Washington as the budget deficits have increased, as the Federal debt has increased, as taxes have increased, and as the middle class has felt the corresponding squeeze that comes about when too many of the dollars of hard-working Americans are sent to Washington to fulfill the priorities of somebody else. I think if one reflects on that debate, they will conclude that that budget which we passed here in the Senate earlier this year and that budget we are going to try to now bring to conclusion in the weeks ahead, puts us on the right path to achieving not only our objective of making sure our economy is strong, but achieving the other goals of balancing the budget credibly and reducing the tax burden on hard- working families. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete its consideration of the Work Force Development Act, legislation which will reform the existing system of Federal job training programs. As a member of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I recommend this bill to my colleagues for three specific reasons. This bill before us will reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government's bureaucracy by eliminating a number of ineffective or duplicative job training programs and, in addition, consolidating many others. This legislation will shift much of the resources and responsibility for operating the remaining programs to the States which are better capable of designing and running effective education and job training programs. Finally--and I believe most importantly--these reforms will help ensure that American workers have the necessary education and skills to compete successfully in the global economy our Nation faces as we enter the 21st century. Before I elaborate on each of these important endeavors, let me first commend the Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, for her dedication to this issue and for her efforts to develop this measure and bring it to the floor. This has been an area of longstanding interest for the chairman, and her staff along with all of the members of the committee have been working on this legislation the entire year. In fact, job training reform was the subject of the first hearings the Labor Committee held this session. Mr. President, it also should be noted that the chairman and the committee staff have worked very closely with the Governors--Democrat and Republican alike--in developing a structure for this work force development system which will allow the necessary Federal oversight to ensure accountability for the States while still providing them with tremendous flexibility. As with welfare reform, this bill represents the advent of a renewed effort toward consultation and cooperation between the Federal Government and the States. This new Federal-State relationship is critical not only to making programs such as job training and welfare successful, but it is essential to solving many other problems confronting our society as well. Mr. President, let me return to the accomplishments of this legislation. First is the issue of eliminating unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy among the existing Federal job training programs. At last count, according to the Government Accounting Office, there are 163 separate Federal job training programs being run by 1 of 15 Federal agencies. Altogether, these programs cost taxpayers more than $20 billion a year. While those numbers alone are astounding, what is even more surprising is the incredible overlap and redundancy of many of these programs. For instance, there are at least 60 programs aimed at assisting the economically disadvantaged, including 34 programs designed to address literacy alone. To add to the confusion, many of these same programs have differing standards for assessing income and other eligibility criteria. However, Mr. President, perhaps the most shocking aspect of the present Federal job training system is the near total lack of accountability. There is essentially no reliable record of results. Fewer than half of the sixty-two training programs scrutinized in a recent GAO investigation bothered to keep track of whether participants had obtained jobs following their training. And only a handful of those programs chose to evaluate whether the training that was provided proved integral to securing employment or whether the individual participant could have obtained the job without receiving the training in question. Mr. President, these facts alone would warrant a dramatic overhaul of the Federal job training system with the goal of eliminating ineffective programs, consolidating programs with identical or similar constituencies and services, and creating a reliable measure of accountability. However, I believe we should go further. And in this bill, we do. In the legislation which is before us, we give the States the resources and the responsibility to establish their own comprehensive, integrated statewide work force development systems. We allow each State to develop a network of education, job training and employment services which reflects their own unique needs and circumstances. Yet we also demand results from the States and have devised a means by which we can assure fairness, integrity, and results. Why, Mr. President, is it so important that the States be given the responsibility for running these programs? There are two basic reasons. The first is efficiency. It should come as no surprise that any Federal job training system--responsible for serving all 50 States--would suffer from inordinate overlap and redundancy. The present system has 19 programs which target youth, as well as several programs serving each of a variety of constituencies, including veterans, seniors, dislocated workers, and displaced homemakers. States, however, are better situated to determine the actual needs of particular constituencies--to the extent those needs differ from that of other individuals seeking assistance. And States are much more likely than the Federal Government to have an accurate assessment of the realistic job opportunities which exist within the State's economy. As Father Bill Cunningham of Detroit's fabulously successful Focus: Hope training program told the Labor Committee back in January: Before any job training program can be successful, we must understand the difference between simply providing jobs for people and that of providing capable and skilled persons to meet the job demands. That is a critical distinction, but one that is often overlooked. Mr. President, a significant problem with the current system is that it is both diffuse and duplicative; individuals seeking assistance often have no idea of where to turn for the help they need. And the various outlets for services usually have no capability or network they can utilize to connect those individuals with particular needs with the services they require. The States are better suited to devise and operate a comprehensive, integrated system that will address these shortcomings while still remaining sensitive to local needs and problems. Whereas the current system generally creates an new program to address every exigent circumstance, States can create a central system which will meet a variety of needs and demands and serve a diverse array of clientele. In the State of Michigan, we have already spent enormous time and effort creating our own statewide work force development system, one that we call Michigan Works! The Michigan Works! system utilizes an approach known as no wrong door. This concept means that through whatever point you access the State work force development system, you will either be directly provided or put in contact with any of the services you need. Mr. President, this is the case: If you are an adult on public assistance trying to get your high school equivalency degree so you can get a job; or If you are working at a low skill, low wage job, and you are desiring to learn a trade or a skill which will allow you to find a better job and earn a better living to support you and your family; or If you are a laid-off assembly line worker who wants to receive computer training or another high-technology skill to prepare you for the high-wage jobs that are increasingly the boon of our economy. Regardless of who you are or where you enter the system, all the services you could possibly need are only a phone call away because Michigan Works! has instituted a 1-800 number to [[Page S 14986]] facilitate access into its work force development system. Mr. President, the second reason that States ought to be given control of these job training programs is one to which I have already alluded: namely, flexibility. Each State has its own distinct demographic or economic concerns that require a unique approach, and Michigan is no different. However, Michigan must also take into consideration its geographical diversity as well. Michigan's southeastern and south central regions are primarily urban and suburban, whereas the western and northern portions of the Michigan's lower peninsula are predominantly rural. And the most obvious unique feature that Michigan has to contend with is the Upper Peninsula. While the Upper Peninsula is in many areas is essentially remote wilderness, there are still over 300,000 people living there. With the area economy linked as it is to agriculture and tourism, the unemployment rate during the winter months can be as high as 20 to 25 percent. And this is true as well for a number of areas in the northern portion of the Lower Peninsula. Obviously, these contrasting areas will require vastly different approaches by the Michigan Works! system if the residents of these areas are all to be served adequately. It would not be logistically feasible or economically efficient for us to have every possible resource or service that a person in the Upper Peninsula might need available just around the corner. That is just not practical. So for Michigan it is imperative that options exist beyond the conventional notion of the one-stop career center, where all of the requisite services are available in one central location. Michigan Works! envisions having several different service delivery options. One of these, the multiple points of entry would be ideal for the Upper Peninsula since it proposes to electronically link work force development agencies with service delivery providers and customers-- even when all three may be separated geographically. Another option would possibly be ideal for the rural areas of the northern southern peninsula and among the smaller cities sprinkled throughout western Michigan. The hub and cluster model would contain a main center with several multiple points of entry throughout the given region to provide outreach and additional service delivery. These mechanisms could be combined with one-stop centers in our major urban areas to comprise Michigan's statewide work force development system. This array of options is possible precisely because of the flexibility afforded States in this legislation. Finally, Mr. President, the most compelling reason I find for reforming our Federal job training system is the issue of our international economic competitiveness. To paraphrase the conclusion drawn in the committee report: Faced with increasingly stiff global competition, corporate restructuring, and continuing Federal budget deficits, our country cannot afford to support a job training system that wastes precious resources, fails to help train people for the jobs of tomorrow, and does not assist employers by providing a work force which meets their labor needs. One of the criticisms of this bill is that it does not mandate the continuation of local work force development boards. While that is true, States are still required to institute some form of State-local partnership to promote adequate consultation and cooperation. And if States do establish local development boards, a majority of the members of these board must come from business and industry. Business must be a key, if not dominant, feature in the decisionmaking process in order for any work force development system to succeed. In Michigan, we are already committed to having local development boards, and we are committed to ensuring that the private sector is the dominant force on those panels. Mr. President, to encourage States to establish local work force development boards, this bill offers such States an expanded array of permissible economic development activities for which they can utilize funds from their so-called flex account. These economic development activities represent the cutting edge of any truly innovative work force development system. They include: Customized assessments of the skills of workers and an analysis of the skill needs of employers in the State; Upgrading the skills of incumbent workers; Productivity and quality improvement training programs for small- and medium-sized employers; Recognition and use of voluntary, industry developed skill standards; Training activities in companies that are developing modernization plans in conjunction with State industrial extension service offices; and Onsite, industry specific training programs supportive of industrial and economic development. Mr. President, I believe activities such as these are instrumental to any successful statewide work force development system. They are also exactly the type of policies which will improve our ability as a Nation to prosper in an increasingly competitive modern global economy. With the pace of advances made in technology and the increasing frequency with which American workers change jobs, it is of paramount importance that workers, businesses, and whole industries be able to adjust rapidly to such circumstances by bolstering existing training or learning new skills. Mr. President, now is the time to lay the ground work for such a capability and enhance our competitiveness heading into the next century. This bill represents a golden opportunity to accomplish this important objective. In conclusion, Mr. President, I support this legislation because it accomplishes three of the primary goals I had in coming to Washington as a U.S. Senator. It eliminates Federal Government waste by reducing ineffective or duplicative programs--and the bureaucracy which oversees them. It gives to States, localities, and the private sector much stronger control over matters such as education, job training, and economic development. And last, I believe this legislation will produce a vastly improved American work force development system and, in turn, increase American competitiveness in the years to come. It is for those reasons that I strongly support this legislation, and I sincerely hope that the vast majority of my colleagues will see fit to support it as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief description of eight different training programs which are part of the Michigan Works! system be entered in the Record. If my colleagues will look they will see that these programs are very innovative and quite often address a particular constituency or a unique need. These are exactly the types of programs which I believe will prosper and proliferate under the legislation we are considering today.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on August 16, Michigan, and America, lost a friend and companion from their airwaves. J.P. McCarthy, whose gentle questions and quiet concerns made the radio sparkle for millions of listeners in Detroit and surrounding communities, passed away from pneumonia brought on by a rare blood disease. J.P. McCarthy interviewed Governors, legislators, businessmen, and even cardinals over the years, and became friends with almost all of them. He asked probing questions with a sincerity and a keen sense of civility that produced straight answers and more than a little enlightenment. He made our lives richer through his work. And his work was not done merely on the radio. J.P. generously gave of his time and effort for numerous charities in and around his hometown. Many was the time when he would stay up late at a fundraiser, knowing full well that he would have to get up before 5 a.m. the next morning so that he could be on the air. But, full as has schedule was, J.P. never neglected his family. After work he would return home for lunch with his wife, Judy, even when he could have been hob-knobbing with the rich and famous. That was the kind of man he was: devoted to family and friends, always certain of where his priorities should lay. Cardinal Adam Maida, the archbishop of Detroit, told those of us at J.P.'s funeral that perhaps the strongest influence on his friend's life was his faith. After his last meeting with J.P., Cardinal Maida in his own words ``knew he was a man who was at peace with God.'' May all who knew and loved J.P. McCarthy be consoled by the knowledge that he is at peace with God, and may we remember the warmth and enlightenment this kind and giving man provided us all.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during the Senate's consideration of the welfare reform bill there was often very little time available for Senators to debate the amendments which were offered. I would like to take a moment of the Senate's time now to comment on various votes which were cast during that debate. Mr. President, no single issue dominated our deliberations more than the subject of illegitimacy. Republican or Democrat. Liberal or Conservative. I believe nearly every Senator emphasized the need for our society to curtail the dramatic rise in illegitimacy--or else face the tragic consequences. Given our near universal expression of concern and the overwhelming urgency of the situation, the logical question became: What steps do we in Congress take to combat this vexing problem? A number of proposals were presented for the Senate to consider. There was the family cap: Essentially denying additional benefits to mothers already on welfare for any additional children they have. There was the issue of denying any assistance at all to unwed teen mothers. And there was the illegitimacy ratio bonus which would provide additional financial assistance to States which successfully lowered their out-of-wedlock birth rate. My general philosophy when it comes to an issue such as welfare reform is to give the States maximum flexibility in designing and operating their own programs. I think this is especially important when dealing with the matter of illegitimacy. While a great deal of attention has been paid to this issue lately, at present, there is no concrete evidence that any specific program or approach has proven to be consistently effective in stemming the tide of illegitimacy. Mr. President, the States have shown they are best suited to serve as laboratories where experimentation can take place and truly innovative solutions will be found. However, if this is to [[Page S 14773]] happen, we must resist the temptation to coerce the States into adopting any one particular approach as the best or only way to combat illegitimacy. The State of New Jersey has over the last couple of years instituted a family cap as part of its welfare program. I applaud their leadership in attempting to reverse the devastating effects of rampant illegitimacy. Nevertheless, there are conflicting reports about the results in New Jersey thus far. At this time, it is unclear what conclusions we in Congress can fairly glean from their experience. Absent credible evidence of success, how can we justify imposing any one approach on every State in the Nation? A far preferable approach, Mr. President, is to set national goals and give the States incentives to pursue them. This is why I fought to add the illegitimacy ratio bonus mechanism to the welfare reform bill. With the bonus, we are giving States a substantial financial incentive to be vigorous in dealing with their out-of-wedlock birth rates without the constraints of a specific policy regimen. It is intended precisely to reward those States which are innovative, assiduous, and successful. And because the award is so substantial, we included language in the provision protecting against States using abortion as a means of achieving these drops in out-of-wedlock births. With these thoughts in mind, Mr. President, I voted for the motion to strike the family cap offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. The Dole family cap language required every State to deny cash benefits for additional children born to mothers already on welfare. There was no opt-out available to States. There was no ability for States to modify the cap to suit their circumstances or to get out from under it if unintended consequences ensued. Many people believe the crisis of illegitimacy is sufficiently dire that dramatic steps must be taken. I concur with that assessment. I simply question the wisdom of forcing all 50 States to adopt a rigid prescription for combatting illegitimacy at the same time we are giving them limited resources and asking them to be creative in designing their own welfare programs. The illegitimacy ratio bonus--providing States the incentive of additional resources if they make use of the flexibility we allow and design effective programs--is I think a better way to induce States to address this problem. Mr. President, this same rationale persuaded me to vote in favor of the Faircloth amendment which combined a Federal requirement that States deny cash assistance to unwed teen mothers with a State opt-out provision. The reason for requiring States to affirmatively opt-out of the Federal requirement is to ensure that States at least engage in a formal debate on how they plan to address the issue of illegitimacy. Given the severity of the problem and the catastrophic ramifications of our doing nothing, I do not believe that requiring States to debate the wisdom of this particular proposal is an unnecessary infringement on State prerogatives or flexibility. It is also important to remember that there is nothing in this legislation which would have prevented States from doing this once the bill was passed. Under the Senate bill, States are free to enact such policies, and I suspect a number of them will. Mr. President, let me stress one final, important point. I have said that I believe States should be given the opportunity to devise and implement their own programs to counter the skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rate. I fully expect them to make the most of this opportunity. Should States either fail to address this issue or to deal with it effectively, I believe the Congress will have no choice but to step in and dictate a more prescriptive approach. Likewise, if particular initiatives yield concrete results at the State level, it would then become more reasonable for the Federal Government to push States to adopt such policies--though not to the exclusion of all other approaches. Mr. President, another area of concern to many Senators was the issue of requiring States to maintain a level of spending on welfare consistent with that of previous years. I think the proponents of such measures--commonly referred to as ``maintenance of effort''--operate out of a genuine concern that States not take advantage of this new Federal-State relationship. Nevertheless, I believe these efforts are misguided for two principal reasons. First, I believe most of these proposals originate out of the false notion that States, once relieved of massive Federal regulation and oversight of these programs, will immediately begin a race to the bottom. Once States are relieved of a required level of spending, it is argued, they will quickly cut benefits and shift their own resources to other areas. As I have stated on other occasions, I find this argument to be both naive and condescending. I think our experience in Michigan shows that States--if given the latitude to run their own programs--can be both efficient and compassionate. The first reforms Michigan instituted, once it received the requisite waivers from HHS, were not designed merely to get people off welfare and save money. In fact, the actual effect of many of these initiatives was this: To allow people to stay on welfare and, at the same time, to remain a two-parent family, or, to take a job and earn some additional money, or, in some instances, to facilitate the welfare recipient's eligibility to receive Medicaid, to which they would not otherwise be entitled. Far from our State's program being more harsh, I believe we in Michigan have been in many ways more realistic and more compassionate than the Federal Government. The second reason the rationale behind maintenance of effort requirements is flawed is that they are simply not realistic. Again, I think Michigan's experience is instructive. Over the last 3 years, Michigan was able to reduce its welfare caseload by approximately 14 percent. In September 1992, our AFDC caseload was almost 222,000 cases and as of August 1995 our caseload has dropped to just over 190,000. Because of this, welfare spending in our State decreased from $485 million in fiscal year 1993 to $451 million in fiscal year 1994--a difference of $34 million or 7 percent. And fiscal year 1995, which is about to end, is expected to be considerably lower than the previous year. Mr. President, there are those who will argue about whether Michigan's caseload reduction is due to our welfare reform program or our strong economy. Frankly, that misses the point. A strong economy has certainly had a beneficial effect on our welfare caseload. However, even if the caseload reduction were due solely to the State's improved economy, the simple fact remains that there normally would be a correspondingly large reduction in State spending on welfare. And this would occur without any negative impact on the services or benefits available to individuals who remain on welfare. Why, Mr. President, should a State have to continue to spend the same amount on welfare if its caseload has been reduced by 10 percent, 20 percent or even 30 percent? Nevertheless, during consideration of the welfare reform bill, the Senate was repeatedly confronted with attempts to impose a maintenance of effort requirement. The original Dole-Packwood bill did not contain a maintenance of effort provision. It was subsequently modified to provide for a 75-percent maintenance of effort for the first 3 years. We then upped that figure to 80 percent, and later extended the effort requirement to 5 years. Mr. President, I supported those changes because I understood that these were sincere attempts to accommodate Senators with serious concerns about this issue. I was willing to agree to these changes precisely because the level of effort required--75 percent or 80 percent--allowed a reasonable degree of latitude for States to adjust their spending levels to meet exigent circumstances. However, the Breaux amendment--which I opposed--required a 90-percent maintenance of effort or a decrease in the State's AFDC grant proportionate to the amount the State's spending fell below 90 percent of previous levels. And shortly before final passage, we were asked to vote on the final Dole modification package which contained two additional maintenance of effort provisions. The first one was tied to the additional $3 billion made available [[Page S 14774]] to States for child care. To be eligible for these funds, States were required to maintain 100 percent of their fiscal year 1994 spending on AFDC child care --even though they would still have to match these Federal funds at the standard Medicaid matching rate. The second was tied to the contingency fund, for which States were only eligible if they maintained 100 percent of their AFDC spending for fiscal year 1994. Mr. President, I realize many of my colleagues are concerned about States not carrying their weight, not paying their fair share. This Senator was willing to support a symbolic level of effort--and did. However, I felt the two additional maintenance of effort provisions in the final Dole modification simply went too far. The effect of all of these provisions, I believe, would be to force States to adopt spending priorities that were inconsistent with their caseloads, their costs or other factors. Why is that a legitimate concern? It amounts to subtle coercion and contradicts what we are purportedly attempting to accomplish by creating the block grant. It violates part of the bargain into which I thought we were entering. We promised to give States essentially a fixed block of money with which to design and operate their own welfare system. The incentive for the States to run a tough, fair and efficient system was that they could decrease the overall amount they spent on welfare and, thereby, free up some of their own funds for use in other areas. By adopting these various maintenance of effort requirements, we have violated that tacit agreement and--I believe--undermined States' ability to succeed. I think that was a mistake. It was for that reason I voted ``No'' on the final Dole modification. However, I still strongly supported the bill on final passage. There are too many other important elements in the legislation. And inclusion of this provision in the bill does not, in my mind, jeopardize the overall feasibility of the welfare block grant scheme. Finally, Mr. President, there were a number of votes on amendments to Title V of the bill which dealt with the provision of Federal means- tested benefits to non-citizens. Let me briefly address a couple of these. First, I see no merit or justification--where the U.S. Constitution is silent--in drawing distinctions between naturalized and native-born citizens. Where the Constitution makes distinctions, we must abide by its directives. Beyond that, I believe all citizens, regardless of how they arrived at their citizenship, ought to be treated equally under the law. America is a nation built by immigrants. It has always served as a shining beacon of freedom to those fleeing tyranny and those seeking opportunity. In the case of my own grandparents, they came here merely looking for an opportunity to build a life for themselves. Once they became U.S. citizens, the place of their birth should have had no bearing on their rights or privileges in this country. This is why I voted for the amendment offered by the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to remove language in the underlying Dole proposal which would deny cash and non-cash welfare benefits to naturalized citizens during the ``deeming" period. The ``deeming'' period refers to the time during which the assets of the immigrant's sponsors are counted in evaluating the need for means-tested government assistance. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is clearly unconstitutional. We are talking about American citizens, not legal aliens. As Senator Feinstein indicated during the debate, the Supreme Court in 1964, in the case Schneider v. Rusk ruled that ``the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized citizens are of the same dignity and coextensive.'' There can be no rationale for explicitly or implicitly designating as ``second-class'' citizens individuals who have come by their citizenship legally. It is as simple as that. The Feinstein amendment would have eliminated any disparate treatment once citizenship has been achieved. That is what the Constitution requires, and that is why I supported her amendment. The other amendments in this area addressed extending federally means-tested benefits to non-citizens. Unlike the issue in the aforementioned Feinstein amendment, in these instances I felt there could be a legitimate policy distinction between citizens and non- citizens. Exact symmetry in our treatment of these groups is not necessary--and, in certain situations, not appropriate. A second Feinstein amendment dealing with immigration would limit the deeming requirements to only cash and cash-like Federal benefits. Therefore, legal aliens with sponsors would not have to have their sponsor's income taken into consideration when applying for such Federal benefits as Medicaid and Head Start. This amendment raises three issues. First, the letter of the law is that all legal immigrants entering this country--even those who ultimately plan to stay permanently and become citizens--must assure immigration officials that they will not become public charges while they are here. They must show sufficient resources either of their own or belonging to their sponsor. While this law has not been diligently enforced, it is important to remember that those are the terms of an immigrant's entrance into our country. Second, we are in the process of making difficult budget decisions on many programs--including Medicaid and Head Start. Are we prepared to facilitate the ability of non-citizens to gain access to these programs at the same time we are placing limits on the funding available to meet the needs of our own citizens? Last, the argument is made that, if these people are not eligible for Federal benefits, the States will end up bearing the cost of providing these services. The bill does make exceptions --such as emergency medical care, disaster relief, school lunches, child nutrition, and immunization against disease--so that under certain circumstances the Federal Government will cover the cost of certain benefits. Aside from those instances, States must decide what level of services they are willing to provide, and they are free to spend their resources in those areas as they see fit. I did not see a compelling reason to add to the exceptions already provided for in the bill, and therefore, I could not support the Feinstein amendment. Senators Simon and Graham offered an amendment which would have eliminated any retroactivity effect from the Dole bill's provision to increase the deeming requirement in all cases to a 5-year period. Currently, there are some government benefits, education assistance being a primary example, for which non-citizens residing legally in the United States can become eligible earlier than the five year deeming period which exists for most means-tested Federal benefits. This provision would apply to a relatively narrow segment of people: only legal aliens who have been in this country less than five years and who either are currently receiving some form of assistance or are eligible to receive some form of assistance because the respective deeming period has expired. As I have indicated, immigrants legally admitted to the United States are asked to pledge that they will either be self-supporting or supported by their sponsors. I regret that some people may be adversely affected by this provision. Nevertheless, it has become too easy in many instances for non-citizens to receive government benefits while our own citizens often go without. At a time when we are making difficult budget cuts which will impact the lives of American citizens, I think we owe it to them to ensure that we are not conferring non-essential benefits to non-citizens. For that reason, I opposed the Simon-Graham amendment on deeming retroactivity. Mr. President, let me quickly describe a number of other issues which arose during the Senate's consideration of the welfare reform bill. Formula issues are always among the most contentious of the matters we deal with in the Senate. On welfare reform, this was once again the case. There were two formula-related amendments offered on the floor: the Graham Children's Fair Share formula and the Feinstein Growth Formula Adjustment. Formulas are usually made up of a number of different variables, but these [[Page S 14775]] variables tend to represent three general indexes. These factors are: How wealthy is the State? What has the State's effort in this area been in the past? And what are the State's needs? The formula's end product depends as much on which of these factors you stress most as it depends on the relevant statistics from the State. In the case of the Graham amendment, the so-called growth States were pitted directly against those States which traditionally had the highest welfare caseload and highest level of expenditures. If the Graham amendment had passed, it would have been devastating to the State of Michigan, and thus I felt compelled to oppose it. The Feinstein amendment was a closer call. The Feinstein amendment was identical to the House formula, and apparently no State would have lost money under its provisions. In fact, the State of Michigan stood to receive a slight increase under the Feinstein proposal. However, because formula fights are so contentious, if every State only looks at the bottom line, we stand either to make bad policy or to be unable to win passage of the bill. In the case of the Feinstein amendment, a compromise had already been worked out between the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, and the Majority Leader which addressed many of the concerns of the so-called growth States. This was a fragile compromise and passage of Feinstein amendment would have abrogated it, effectively increasing the likelihood of the Graham amendment passing. That would have been devastating to Michigan. My vote against the Feinstein amendment was an attempt to ensure ultimate passage of the bill while also guaranteeing adequate funding for my State. The Senator from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun offered two amendments that dealt with cutting off benefits. The first stipulated that the 5-year cumulative time limit on benefits for welfare recipients would not apply if any State did not provide employment, job training or job counseling to the recipient. The problem with this amendment is that it places the entire burden on the State to provide the work-activity related services'' to the recipient, thus alleviating the individual of any need to exert the effort and responsibility necessary to seek out and obtain job training or employment. We already have a requirement that States get welfare recipients into work-related activities; it is called the participation rate. States which do not meet this will themselves be sanctioned. Mr. President, if individuals desire to get off welfare and into training or employment, they will find an eager partner in the State welfare agency. For those recipients who are less motivated--or not motivated at all--we need the 5-year time limit. Adopting this amendment would, in my estimation, emasculate the 5-year time limit, and for that reason I opposed it. The second Moseley-Braun amendment dealt with the consequences of what happens to children if their parents are sanctioned for any reason and lose their benefits. It would have required States to replace the lost benefits with vouchers for goods and services equal to each child's share of the benefits. I am sympathetic to the problem the Senator from Illinois sought to rectify. I am simply concerned that, in this instance, her solution was too far-reaching. As with ``strings'' in other areas--for instance illegitimacy--I am reluctant to tell States they must address a potential problem with a particular remedy. States are free, under this bill, to do exactly what this amendment proposes with their own funds. And I believe many will. But by passing this amendment, we would be limiting the options available to the State to address certain exigencies. I believe that would be a mistake, and for that reason I voted against this particular amendment of the Senator from Illinois. The Senate also considered a similar amendment offered by the Minority Leader and the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, which would permit States to use Federal funds to provide non-cash assistance to children whose parents become ineligible for assistance due to the five year time limit. As I stated above, States are, of course, perfectly free and capable to provide this assistance with their own funds. However, there is another provision of the Dole bill which could apply in such instances. The Dole bill does allow States a hardship exemption to protect families from the five year time limit when circumstances warrant. In fact, the Majority Leader, at the request of the Minority Leader, raised the level of hardship exemptions States can claim from 15 percent to 20 percent precisely to address this concern. So I am confident that sufficient resources and flexibility exist for States to take care of children who may be affected by the 5-year time limit. Mr. President, I have a lot more faith than apparently is held on the other side of the aisle that Governors and State legislators--whether they are Republicans or Democrats--will not allow children in their States to suffer. I know that many people believe that will occur. I do not. I believe that any elected official who allows that to take place on their watch will pay the price at the ballot box at the next election. And frankly, Mr. President, there is already considerable suffering occurring under the present system. I do not imagine the States could do much worse. There were two amendments from the Senator from Maryland that I would like to discuss. One dealt with an issue both she and I had addressed earlier this year in the Labor Committee. Her amendment proposed to strike from the workforce development portion of the welfare bill the repeal of Title V of the Older Americans Act which applies to senior community service employment programs. While the workforce development section now has been separated from the welfare reform bill to be taken up as a free-standing measure, let me describe the rationale behind my opposition to the Mikulski amendment. The existing Senior Community Service Employment program gives approximately $320 million to about 10 national seniors groups. It is then left to those groups to set up programs that benefit the seniors at the State and local level. By many accounts, that presently is not happening. During the Labor Committee's consideration of the workforce development bill, I heard from seniors groups in Michigan. They supported the concept of block granting these funds to the State level precisely because they are not receiving adequate funding under the current structure. The General Accounting Office reportedly will soon release a report documenting the degree to which these funds fail to ever reach the senior citizens and local seniors groups they are meant to benefit. Reportedly, one fifth of the $320 million is going to administrative costs including salaries, fringe benefits and expenses. Only a fraction of the remainder reaches the grass roots level. This is the type of arrangement that my constituents sent me to Washington to rectify. That is why I supported block granting these funds to the States and why I voted against the Senator from Maryland's amendment. The second Mikulski amendment was very attractive in theory, but it contained a couple of elements which I could not justify supporting. The purpose of the amendment was noble: to create incentives for families to stay intact and to remove any existing disincentives from the law. Regrettably, one of the incentives was a mandate on States to establish job training and employment programs for non-custodial parents to help them get jobs, earn an income, and pay child support. That is a laudable objective, Mr. President. However, how do we explain to the lower-middle class working parent, who may already be holding down two or three jobs himself or herself, that we are setting up a new program to provide a dead-beat dad job training when we are not providing them the same opportunity. I think the existing penalties for dead-beat parents--and the additional ones provided in this bill-- will give them sufficient incentive, if they are so inclined, to seek out training and work. And there are plenty of existing job training and employment service programs available to meet the needs of any non- custodial parents needing assistance. Second, this amendment attempted to re-insert into the bill a controversial provision which had already been struck: namely, the $50 pass-through. [[Page S 14776]] In most, if not every State, the policy is that when delinquent child support payments are finally collected, the State is first entitled to subtract the costs it incurred in providing assistance to the family while child support was not forthcoming. It then passes any remaining money on to the mother. This amendment would propose that the first fifty dollars collected in back child support be passed directly through to the mother before the State attempts to defray its costs in caring for the family. Mr. President, State child support agencies oppose this amendment as an added and unnecessary administrative burden and as an obstacle to States' attempts to recoup monies they have spent supporting these families. We are not talking about States taking money which rightfully belongs to others. We are talking about State's being reimbursed for their expenditures when remuneration becomes available, and therefore, being able to support another needy family at a later date. That is entirely reasonable and fair, and thus, I believe such a proposal is misguided. The Mikulski amendment does contain a provision which I strongly support: the elimination of the 100-hour work limit or the man in the house rule. However, the other aforementioned elements of the amendment are not sound policy to my mind, and therefore, I felt constrained to oppose the amendment. As an aside, Mr. President, back in 1992 the State of Michigan sought and received a waiver from HHS from the man in the house regulation as well as the work history requirement before families can become eligible for AFDC. Please understand this incongruity: For a two parent family to be eligible for AFDC, one of the parents must have a recent work history, but at the same time, that parent cannot be working more than 100 hours in a given month. That, Mr. President, is why we need to free States from the Federal micro-management which has, I think, plagued our national social policy over the last thirty years. On another matter, the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, offered an amendment to increase funding levels for treatment programs for drug abuse and alcohol treatment. Senator Bingaman's amendment sought to increase funding for these programs by an additional $300 million. This was after the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader had already included in the final modification package a funding level of $50 million for the next two years. The Senator from New Mexico preferred $100 million for the next 4 years. Mr. President, it is no secret that substance abuse and alcoholism are severe problems for our society and not simply characteristic of welfare populations. Nevertheless, research confirms that a very sizable segment of the long-term welfare dependent population has either a substance or alcohol abuse problem. Any effective welfare reform program at the State level will have to deal with this dilemma. The problem, Mr. President, is that we have very limited resources with which to work. If we add $300 million dollars in substance abuse treatment, it will come from one of two places. It can come right off the top of each State's welfare block grant. But this is money already going to the States, and under this amendment, the States would have no option but to use it exclusively for treatment. At least under the Dole proposal, States can assess their own needs in determining what is a reasonable level of expenditure. The only other recourse we would have is to tell the Finance Committee that they now, during the reconciliation process, need to come up with another $300 million from somewhere. Will it be Medicare? Will it be Medicaid? Who knows? The responsible thing, I believe, Mr. President, is to allow the States to determine their own needs and give them the flexibility to direct the necessary resources to meet that need. For that reason, I voted against the Bingaman amendment. That same day we also considered a Sense of the Senate amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, which stated that ``any Medicaid reform enacted by the Senate this year should require that States continue to provide Medicaid for 12 months to families who lose eligibility for welfare benefits because of more earnings or hours of employment.'' Mr. President, this is one of those amendments that appears well intentioned and reasonable, but serves, I think, to replicate the type of over-regulation that has hampered our Federal social programs for years. In Michigan, as I have already noted, we were able to secure a waiver from HHS that would allow us to opt out of a Federal regulation which served to limit people's access to Medicaid. Once Michigan obtained the waiver, between October 1992 and December 1992 over 4,500 cases were transferred from our State Family Assistance Program to Medicaid. In 1994, Michigan sought another waiver from HHS. The State wanted to eliminate the disincentive which often exists when people face the prospect of losing Medicaid if they find employment and leave AFDC. Michigan proposed to offer a Medicaid ``Buy-In'' option for individuals whose transitional Medicaid coverage had expired and for whom employer- based health coverage was not available. This program would also cover children for whom a child support order requires the purchase of health coverage. Regrettably, our State has still not received a waiver from HHS so they cannot move forward with this program. Because of this inaction, people in my State go without health care coverage or remain on welfare. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues: Where is the compassion in that? This program would in fact be even more generous than what the Senator from Minnesota has suggested in his amendment. The State of Michigan was not under duress when it requested this waiver; it was good social policy. It is experiences like this that give me confidence that the States are going to perform much better than people think, and better than the Federal Government has performed in many areas. Perhaps the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota is not misguided in intent, but I am afraid it is misguided in effect. It states that one particular approach is ideal in all situations. There is not even an allowance for States to deny benefits to individuals earning over a reasonable income limit; it only states ``families who lose eligibility'' because of ``more earnings'' should retain their Medicaid eligibility for an additional 12 months. This amendment is simply unrealistic, and it undermines our efforts to give States maximum flexibility in responding to various exigencies. I felt it was necessary to oppose it. Following the Wellstone amendment, the Senate took up an amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. The Kohl amendment would have exempted senior citizens, the disabled, and children from the optional food stamp block grant which is part of the Dole bill. First let me point out that, through burdensome regulations and restrictions, we have already made the ``option'' for States to elect a food stamp block grant fairly unattractive. This would make it only more so. Imagine the administrative nightmare for a State to run a system in which some of its citizens are in the State program and some are still in the Federal system. That would prove to be unworkable. There is also the matter of cost. This provision would reportedly cost an additional $1.4 billion. As I have already indicated, it can only come from two places: decreasing the amount going to States in their welfare block grants--meaning less money in assistance--or further reductions in other federal programs like Medicare or Medicaid. I do not believe that either of those results is acceptable, and therefore, I voted against the Kohl amendment. The Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, offered an amendment which would undermine the tough work requirement in the Dole bill by allowing the Secretary of HHS to modify each State's work participation rate to reflect the varying levels of Federal assistance. I agree that some States are farther along than others in developing a welfare program capable of meeting the ambitious participation rates contained in the Dole bill. However, I also believe that States are given sufficient tools and enough flexibility in this bill to meet these targets in the time allotted. [[Page S 14777]] My concern, Mr. President, is that if we do not have tough, uniform work requirements, States will have every incentive to come up with reasons that these target rates are not achievable. As it now stands, States know what is expected of them, and they are given five years to meet these targets. And we have made a number of changes to facilitate their task. To have accepted this amendment would have set us back considerably from our goal to have people on welfare performing real work. For that reason, I could not support the Graham amendment. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe the Senate's passage of this legislation was a momentous occasion. It marked, I think, a watershed in our approach to social policy in this Nation. There were a number of considerable accomplishments in this measure. We were able to end the ``entitlement'' status of welfare benefits. The American people have made it clear that they want a welfare system which does more than simply provide government hand-outs. They expect something from the recipient in return--self-discipline, a work ethic, personal responsibility. But it is practically impossible to have real welfare reform without the ability to sanction those recipients who fail to abide by the terms of the program. As long as welfare is treated as an entitlement--essentially a right and not a benefit--the courts have ruled that the same due process rights exists for the welfare recipient as for a homeowner or property owner. In fact, some would argue it would be easier for the Government to take your property away. Without this legislation, sanctioning recipients who refuse to work will be administratively unduly burdensome if not impossible. The second major achievement of the welfare bill was to erect a strong work requirement for States to use in developing their programs. We started by giving States difficult targets to reach in the form of work participation rates among welfare recipients--and without exemptions. Exemptions only serve to exaggerate the number of people working in any State. We then crafted a strict definition of what constitutes work so that we could be confident that the States had genuine work programs. Other than those parameters, Mr. President, we tell the States that they are free to determine by themselves how they wish to meet those targets. Third, while the Senate did not go as far as many people wished, we took a sizable and laudable first step toward addressing the crisis of illegitimacy. We made illegitimacy a core feature of the welfare reform bill, and we gave States a carrot and stick. The carrot comes in the form of the illegitimacy ratio bonus. The stick, I believe, is the inevitability of Congress taking much more drastic, prescriptive actions if States fail to effectively combat their out-of-wedlock birth rates. Finally, the bill gives the States tremendous latitude and flexibility in designing and running the programs we are block granting and sending back to them. That is critical if the block grant approach is to ever succeed. For years, many of us have said that the Federal Government does not have all the answers. We have repeatedly proclaimed that too often bureaucrats in Washington have actually created many of our problems or were hindrances to others' attempts at finding solutions. Mr. President, this Senator simply does not believe that government at any level--Federal, State or local--has the resources or the ingenuity to solve all of our Nation's social problems. That is especially true when we are talking about many of the issues related to welfare reform: illegitimacy, child care, education and job training, paternity establishment and child support. If all we ask of our welfare system is to provide a safety net for people who have fallen on hard times, then we can content ourselves with Government merely getting money or goods into peoples' hands. However, if we want our welfare system to be one in which individuals needing assistance are given the tools and the opportunities to get off welfare and never return, the assistance we provide has to be more than simply a government hand-out. To accomplish this will require input from a whole host of other institutions in our society beyond government--our churches, our schools, our businesses, our civic associations--in essence, our entire community. For too many years, Government has seen itself as the sole purveyor of opportunity for the less fortunate and, in the process, has stifled the efforts of other institutions desirous of sharing the workload. With the passage of this welfare reform bill, we are telling Government that it must begin to share the responsibilities and the resources with other partners in this endeavor. That is why I believe the legislation we passed last week is such a tremendous accomplishment. I trust the conferees will work diligently to come up with a similarly tough and balanced measure, one that most of us can wholeheartedly support.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to explain several of my votes concerning H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations appropriation bill. I voted in favor of final passage of the bill because it would meet U.S. foreign relations and national security goals, while cutting spending in those areas that do not directly support the U.S. national security strategy. Many of the amendments offered to the bill concerned the question of responsibility the United States has in economically or militarily supporting other countries. I ran for this body on a platform fiscal conservatism and directing our foreign assistance programs towards those areas in which the United States has a direct political, economic, or national security interest. Although many arguments were raised as to what effect U.S. aid would [[Page S 14707]] or would not have in the recipient country, my votes on the amendments turned more on the question of whether the national security of the United States was directly improved by the provision or withholding of this assistance. These principles led me to oppose the D'Amato amendment to cut Economic Support Fund assistance to Turkey, but support the Dole amendment on the transhipment of United States humanitarian aid. I believe the United States national security interests are best served by a strong and stable Turkish government, which has fully committed itself to the principles of open markets, democratic government, and the preservation of individual liberties. Turkey, in my opinion, is making progress on all these fronts, and relations with its neighbors are similarly changing, both with United States assistance and through other venues. Because of the potential for our relations with Turkey to quickly shift, I believe it is critical any conditions the Congress places upon assistance to Turkey provide the Executive with the tools necessary to adjust to those new circumstances. The D'Amato amendment cut almost half of the Economic Support Fund aid to Turkey without any method for the Executive to resume that aid if such leverage proves necessary or fruitful. For that reason I was unable to support the D'Amato amendment. The Dole amendment, however, provided such tools to the Executive, and I was therefore able to support this measure. Although the language of the amendment was universal in its application, the Majority Leader made clear his motivation for this measure was Turkey's refusal to allow the transhipment of United States humanitarian aid to Armenia. Because of the potential for a rapid shift in our national security objectives and relations with Turkey, this amendment provides the Executive the authority to waive its provisions if it is in the United States national security interests to do so. Given the strategic, political and economic importance of Turkey to the United States, I believe this is a vital provision. This language is even more expansive than the original Humanitarian Relief Corridor Act waiver language and I applaud its inclusion. Although the amendment was adopted by voice vote, if it had come to the floor for a roll call vote, I would have voted in favor of its adoption. I also wish to make it clear that if the progress I referred to earlier in the democratization and liberalization of Turkey does not continue and solidify, I may determine that requested levels of United States assistance are no longer serving our national interests. I also wish to explain my opposition to the Brown amendment allowing the transfer of previously purchased military equipment to Pakistan. This amendment was presented as an attempt to divest the United States of military equipment purchased by Pakistan, but withheld due to the implementation of the Pressler Amendment. I do not wish to argue the relative merits of the Pressler amendment itself, for that was not the issue. The issue was whether the United States should go back on its legislatively defined position that aid to Pakistan could only be provided if Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. The Pressler Amendment had been on the books for almost 5 years before it was finally implemented in 1990, and Pakistan knew full well what would happen if the President found it impossible to certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. Pakistan continued those policies that led to this Presidential determination, and they must be willing to accept the consequences. This is not to imply our interests in South Asia are static. All parties must abandon the notion that United States relations with Pakistan and India are part of some regional zero-sum game. Measures the United States undertakes to improve relations with one country should not be interpreted as happening at the expense of the other country. But I believe allowing the introduction of significant military hardware at this critical juncture in South Asian relations would be contrary to our national interests and regional stability. Obviously, however, the affirmative vote on the Brown amendment indicates the Senate is moving in another direction. I therefore believe it is now time for the United States to move past this issue in our relations with India and Pakistan, and extend our relations with both countries, not at the expense of one or the other, but in tandem. As for my support for the Helms amendment regarding funding for the UN Population Fund [UNFPA], it is not because I am opposed to foreign assistance. Indeed, I believe it is vitally important we remain engaged in the international arena, and foreign assistance can be a powerful tool for the United States to further its political, economic, and national security goals. However, the history of our foreign assistance programs shows a repeated record of funding for controversial projects that do little to advance those goals. Given the demands to balance the budget and cut federal spending, I believe this program is extraneous to our foreign policy objectives. The UNFPA fully supports Chinese population control programs that include forced abortions and involuntary sterilization. These practices are contrary to the values of a large segment of my State's citizens, and I believe the citizens of the United States as well. That consideration, in fact, is why the Congress has previously mandated such United assistance to the UNFPA be separated from the Chinese programs. But I believe such separations are irrelevant given the inherent fungibility of money. The UNFPA simply shifts other donor countries contributions to China and use the United States contributions as a replacement in non-Chinese projects. The Helms amendment stops this elaborate shell game unless China ceases such practices or the UNFPA withdraws from this program, and brings such expenditures in line with the clear wishes of the American people. I therefore voted to adopt the Helms amendment. Finally, Mr. President, I wish to explain my vote regarding the Smith amendment prohibiting Most Favored Nation trading status with Vietnam, or the provision of trade financing incentives unless the President certifies they have been fully cooperative on the issues of United States POW/MIA's and human rights. The normalization of relations with Vietnam is a major development in United States foreign policy, and I have long been disappointed the Congress was not more fully brought into this process by the Administration. There are still substantial questions regarding the fate of United servicemen lost in South East Asia during the Vietnam War. I therefore voted for this amendment in the hope it would provide the leverage needed to obtain this crucial cooperation and information. However, given the amendment's rejection by a vote of 39 to 59, it is clear the Senate has decided to move forward in relations with Vietnam, and I am fully prepared to become involved in that process. The Administration has promised these initiatives towards Vietnam will more assuredly provide the United States the answers it needs regarding POWs and MIA's in South East Asia. I will monitor that progress closely over the next year, and make an independent evaluation as to whether these measures have indeed helped resolve these questions. Mr. President, it is difficult to analyze this myriad of issues in the pure vacuum of policy analysis. Different groups can have vastly different positions on issues, and each can defend those positions with a plethora of hard evidence and supporting statistics. However, by applying a standard of United national security interests to such decisions, I believe we can ensure that our international initiatives best meet our national strategies and goals, and further the establishment of democratic societies, free market economies and individual liberty. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. president, today the President is awarding, posthumously, the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Walter Reuther. I wish to add my voice to the chorus honoring this fine man, who dedicated his life to helping the working men and women of America. Walter Reuther, son of immigrants, tool and die worker, labor organizer and President of the UAW lived for the union movement. My own father was a UAW member, so I know full well the many benefits working families gained from Walter Reuther's leadership. Higher wages, better benefits and safer working conditions all resulted from Mr. Reuther's tireless work on behalf of workers. My father achieved the respect he deserved and our family and our neighbors achieved a decent life in part because of Walter Reuther's efforts. At one point Mr. Reuther was shot in the back for his positions and actions. Despite the dangers, and the pain, he carried on. He refused to be cowed by bullies or by anybody else. He would fight for the workers in whom he believed, no matter what the cost. His determination made him, more than any other man, the one responsible for unionization of the auto industry. Committed to helping workers, he nonetheless avoided political extremism, purging his own union of its extremist elements and making it safe for good, honest Americans. Walter Reuther died in 1970. He and his wife were victims of a plane accident. But his union survives, as does his vision of a society in which working men and women are given their proper respect. On behalf of the people of Michigan allow me to express our gratitude to the President for bestowing this honor on one of our own, and to Walter Reuther for his inspiring contribution to our way of life; a contribution that makes him most worthy of this Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I accept the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. As is plain from its language, it does not request the Commission to send new guideline changes. Rather, it requests the Commission's recommendations for how the laws and guidelines should be changed. That is the course that in my view is appropriate for the Commission to take, since under current law, the sentences are largely dictated by mandatory minimums set by Congress. Accordingly, major changes in this area have to come from Congress, and until such changes are made the guidelines should conform with existing law. Thus, while the amendment does not detract from the Commission's existing statutory authority to propose amendments to the guidelines, that is not what the amendment asks the Commission to send us. Rather, the amendment merely asks for a policy recommendation. As I indicated on introducing this bill, I have some sympathy with some of the concerns the Commission has raised about present law. In particular, I am concerned that some powder defendants at the top of crack distribution networks seem to be getting lower sentences than retail distributors. I also think that while there is good reason for significant differential treatment of powder and crack, we should have a look more generally at whether the present differential represents the best policy. In my view, however, the Commission resolved these concerns the wrong way: by lowering sentences for crack, rather than by raising sentences for powder. Along with several of my colleagues, I would like to see these issues addressed from the other end: by raising the sentences for powder distribution. My specific proposal, embodied in the companion bill I sponsored along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Brown, and McConnell, is to lower the trigger for powder sentences from 500 to 100 grams for mandatory 5-five year sentences, and from 5,000 to 1,000 grams for mandatory 10 year sentences. I believe this resolution of the matter is entirely consistent with the criteria set out in Senator Kennedy's amendment. I should only add that I would be very concerned about any resolution of this matter that is predicated on the lowering of sentences for crack distributors. I believe that would send exactly the wrong message: that in the war against crack society blinked. I believe the amendment proposed by Senator Kennedy is entirely consistent with these views, and I therefore accept his amendment on that basis. Mr. Hatch. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment to block reductions in penalties for crack dealing proposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. If the Congress does not act, those changes will take effect this November 1. According to the Department of Justice, which has also asked us to block implementation of the changes, the new penalty structure will make base sentences for crack anywhere from two to six times shorter than they are now. The Department of Justice written to tell us that they ``strongly support S. 1254'' which is ``very similar to our proposal. That is simply irresponsible public policy. It would send a terrible message both to crack dealers and to communities trying to fight back against the crack trade. No one, not even the Sentencing Commission, denies that the brunt of crack's social consequences have fallen on poor, urban, minority, residents. Given what crack has done to our cities, it frankly amazes me to hear people arguing for lower sentences. Especially from people who wouldn't for one moment tolerate an open-air crack market in their neighborhood in Scarsdale or Chevy Chase. The Commission's own report, moreover, acknowledges that crack's psychoactive effects are far more intense than powder cocaine, which means that crack is far more additive. Members of the Sentencing Commission are concerned that the current sentencing structure creates a perception of unfairness because most convicted crack dealers are Africans-Americans, whereas a majority of convicted powder dealers are white or Hispanic. I am sensitive to these concerns. This Congress will deal severely and aggressively with any indication that prosecution or sentencing is being driven by racial considerations. We will not tolerate any racial discrimination in our criminal justice system. But Mr. President, it is also important to remember that the number of people convicted for crack violations each year is just 3,430. I am more concerned, to be blunt, about the millions of people living in our cities whose quality of life is being ruined. These people have equal rights to safe neighborhoods. To those who say the Federal Government is locking up tens of thousands of nonviolent, low-level offenders, let me say this: We studied that question. What we found was that out of the 3,430 crack defendants convicted in 1994, the number of youthful, small-time crack offenders with no prior criminal history and no weapons involvement, sentenced in Federal courts, was just 51. The median crack defendant was convicted of trafficking 109 grams--more than 2,000 ``rocks'' or doses. Only 10 percent of crack defendants had trafficked less than 2-3 grams of crack--the equivalent of 40-60 doses. And finally, on Tuesday, September 12, HHS released alarming figures showing drug use up sharply among our young people. Mr. President, this is not the time to be sending the message that we are weakening social sanctions against the drug trade. One additional point. The amendment would also block another set of proposed changes--relating to money laundering--offered by the Sentencing Commission. Here too, the Commission's amendments would dramatically lower the penalties for many money [[Page S 14782]] laundering offenders, including those engaged in the laundering of proceeds of both financial and drug offenses. Under the current guidelines, for instance, an offender who launders $110,000 worth of proceeds would face a range of 37-46 months. Under the Commission's proposed changes, the guideline range would be just 21-27 months in prison. An offender who laundered $110,000 worth of illegal drug proceeds would receive a sentence of 51-63 months under the current guidelines. The Commission's amendments would change that to 33-41 months. The money laundering guidelines need to be reviewed, but the changes recommended by the Commission are simply too sweeping. As with the amendments to lower crack sentences, the Department of Justice has urged us to reject the money laundering proposal. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today [[Page S 14419]] will play a critical role in restoring public confidence in government's ability to protect the public safety. Moreover, it will accomplish this important purpose not by spending more taxpayer money but by saving it. I would like to focus my remarks on the provisions addressing the proper scope of court-ordered remedies in prison conditions cases. In many jurisdictions, including my own State of Michigan, judicial orders entered under Federal law have effectively turned control of the prison system away from elected officials accountable to the taxpayer, and over to the courts. The courts, in turn, raise the costs of running prisons far beyond what is necessary. In the process, they also undermine the legitimacy and punitive and deterrent effect of prison sentences. Let me tell you a little bit about how this works. Under a series of judicial decrees resulting from Justice Department suits against the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Federal courts now monitor our State prisons to determine. First, how warm the food is; second, how bright the lights are; third, whether there are electrical outlets in each cell; fourth, whether windows are inspected and up to code; fifth, whether prisoners' hair is cut only by licensed barbers; and sixth, and whether air and water temperatures are comfortable. This would be bad enough if a court had ever found that Michigan's prison system was at some point in violation of the Constitution, or if conditions there had been inhumane. But that is not the case. To the contrary, nearly all of Michigan's facilities are fully accredited by the American Corrections Association. We have what may be the most extensive training program in the Nation for corrections officers. Our rate of prison violence is among the lowest of any State. And we spend an average of $4,000 a year per prisoner for health care, including nearly $1,700 for mental health services. Rather, the judicial intervention is the result of a consent decree that Michigan entered into in 1982--13 years ago--that was supposed to end a lawsuit filed at the same time. Instead, the decree has been a source of continuous litigation and intervention by the court into the minutia of prison operations. I think this is all wrong. People deserve to keep their tax dollars or have them spent on projects they approve. They deserve better than to have their money spent, on keeping prisoners in conditions some Federal judge feels are desirable, although not required by any provision of the Constitution or any law. And they certainly don't need it spent on defending against endless prisoner lawsuits. Meanwhile, criminals, while they must be accorded their constitutional rights, deserve to be punished. Obviously, they should not be tortured or treated cruelly. At the same time, they also should not have all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy. Rather, their lives should, on the whole, be describable by the old concept known as ``hard time.'' By interfering with the fulfillment of this punitive function, the courts are effectively seriously undermining the entire criminal justice system. The legislation we are introducing today will return sanity and State control to our prison systems. Our bill forbids courts from entering orders for prospective relief (such as regulating food temperatures) unless the order is necessary to correct violations of individual plaintiffs' Federal rights. It also requires that the relief be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means of protecting the Federal rights. And it directs courts to give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system caused by the relief. It also provides that any party can seek to have a court decree ended after 2 years, and that the court will order it ended unless there is still a constitutional violation that needs to be corrected. As a result, no longer will prison administration be turned over to Federal judges for the indefinite future for the slightest reason. Instead, the States will be able to run prisons as they see fit unless there is a constitutional violation, in which case a narrowly tailored order to correct the violation may be entered. This is a balanced bill that allows the courts to step in where they are needed, but puts an end to unnecessary judicial intervention and micromanagement. I thank all my colleagues for their interest in this matter and hope we will be able to get something enacted soon.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I add my thanks to the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, who has worked very hard with us to try to find language that will allow this project to go forward, to try to save the taxpayers of Kalamazoo, MI, from having to build an almost identical water treatment facility to the one that already exists to deal with problems at the existing facility. We appreciate that. We will continue to move forward and continue to work with the Senator from Rhode Island to make sure this project successfully stays on track.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator for that clarification, and wish to follow-up regarding how that data will be provided. Given NASA itself made the recommendation for CIESIN funding, I believe it is apparent this is a valid program given the Committee's recommendation to continue significant funding for the Mission to Planet Earth program. If NASA wished to bring in an outside contractor to provide this socioeconomic data service, would the Committee report language prevent CIESIN from bidding upon, and potentially winning such a contract?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies in a brief discussion regarding the impact of H.R. 2099 on this year and future year's Mission to Plant Earth projects. The Committee Report accompanying H.R. 2099 directs a $6 million deletion in the Mission to Planet Earth program for the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Networks [CIESIN] in Saginaw, Michigan. This center is one of NASA's nine Distributed Active Archive Centers [DAACs] supporting the Earth Observing System Data and Information System. CIESIN is the only one that provides integrated socioeconomic data access for the study of the effect society has upon the environment. Because of this unique capability, I understand CIESIN fielded more requests for data last year than all of the other eight DAACs combined. I also understand NASA officials have stated the product provided by CIESIN is vital to the Earth Observing System program. In light of these considerations, I would ask my distinguished colleague from Missouri why the Committee recommends deleting the CIESIN budget request from the 1996 appropriations?

Mr. ABRAHAM. If the Senator would be so kind, I would just like to wrap up with one more question. Given the House Report on H.R. 2099 also deletes $6 million for CIESIN, would the Senator from Missouri speculate as to whether similar language in a Conference report would also allow for CIESIN to receive a NASA contract for these services?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee for that explanation and for the kind assistance he has provided me and my staff in resolving this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that I believe is essential if we are to restore public confidence in government's ability to protect the public safety. Moreover, it will accomplish this purpose not by spending more taxpayer money but by saving it. This legislation removes enormous obstacles the Federal Government has placed in the path of States' and localities' ability to protect their residents. I would like to highlight three of these obstacles and explain what we are going to do to remove them. First, in many jurisdictions including my own State of Michigan, judicial orders entered under Federal law raise the costs of running prisons far beyond what is necessary. These orders also thereby undermine the legitimacy and punitive and deterrent effect of prison sentences. Second, in other jurisdictions, judicial orders entered under Federal law actually result in the release of dangerous criminals from prisons. Third, these orders are complemented by a veritable torrent of prisoner lawsuits. Although these suits are found non-meritorious the vast majority of the time (over 99 percent, for example, in the ninth circuit), they occupy an enormous amount of State and local time and resources; time and resources that would be better spent incarcerating more dangerous offenders. Let me start with the problems in my own State of Michigan. Under a series of judicial decrees resulting from Justice Department suits against the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Federal courts now monitor our State prisons to determine: 1. How warm the food is. 2. How bright the lights are. 3. Whether there are electrical outlets in each cell. 4. Whether windows are inspected and up to code. 5. Whether prisoners' hair is cut only by licensed barbers. 6. And whether air and water temperatures are comfortable. Elsewhere, American citizens are put at risk every day by court decrees. I have in mind particularly decrees that cure prison crowding by declaring that we must free dangerous criminals before they have served their time, or not incarcerate certain criminals at all because prisons are too crowded. The most egregious example is the city of Philadelphia. For the past 8 years, a Federal judge has been overseeing what has become a program of wholesale releases of up to 600 criminal defendants per week to keep the prison population down to what she considers an appropriate level. Under this order, there are no individualized bail hearings on a defendant's criminal history before deciding whether to release the defendant before trial. Instead, the only consideration is what the defendant is charged with the day of his or her arrest. No matter what the defendant has done before, even, for example, if he or she was previously convicted of murder, if the charge giving rise to the arrest is a non-violent crime, the defendant may not be held pretrial. Moreover, the so-called non-violent crimes include stalking, carjacking, robbery with a baseball bat, burglary, drug dealing, vehicular homicide, manslaughter, terroristic threats, and gun charges. As a result Philadelphia, which before the cap had about 18,000 outstanding bench warrants, now has almost 50,000. In reality, though, no one is out looking for these fugitives. Why look? If they were found, they would just be released back onto the streets under the prison cap. In the meantime thousands of defendants who were out on the streets because of the cap have been rearrested for new crimes, including 79 murders, 959 robberies, 2,215 drug dealing charges, 701 burglaries, 2,748 thefts, 90 rapes, and 1113 assaults. Looking at the same material from another vantage point: In 1993 and 1994, over 27,000 new bench warrants for misdemeanor and felony charges were issued for defendants released under the cap. That's 63 percent of all new bench warrants in 1993 and 74 percent of all new bench warrants for the first 6 months of 1994. Failure to appear rates for crimes covered by the cap are all around 70 percent, as opposed to, for example, non-covered crimes like aggravated assault, where the rate is just 3 percent. The Philadelphia fugitive rate for defendants charged with drug dealing is 76 percent, three times the national rate. Over 100 persons in Philadelphia have been killed by criminals set free under the prison cap. Moreover, the citizenry has understandably lost confidence in the criminal justice system's ability to protect them. And the criminals, on the other hand, have every reason to believe that the system can't do anything about them. All of this would be bad enough if it were the result of a court order to correct serious constitutional violations committed by the Philadelphia corrections system. But it is not. Indeed, a different Federal judge recently found that conditions in Philadelphia's oldest and most decrepit facility--Holmesburg Prison-- met constitutional standards. These murderous early releases are the result of a consent decree entered into by the prior mayoral administration from which the current administration has been unable to extricate itself. Finally, in addition to massive judicial interventions in State prison systems, we also have frivolous inmate litigation brought under Federal law; this litigation also ties up enormous resources. Thirty- three States have estimated that Federal inmate suits cost them at least $54.5 million annually. The National Association of Attorneys General have extrapolated that number to conclude that nationwide the costs are at least $81.3 million. Since, according to their information, more than 95 percent of these suits are dismissed without the inmate receiving anything, the vast majority of the $81.3 million being spent is attributable to non-meritorious cases. Mr. President, in my opinion this is all wrong. People deserve to keep their tax dollars or have them spent on projects they approve. They deserve better than to have their money spent, on keeping prisoners in conditions some Federal judge feels are desirable (although not required by any provision of the Constitution or any law). And they certainly don't need it spent on defending against frivolous prisoner lawsuits. And convicted criminals, while they must be accorded their constitution rights, deserve to be punished. I think virtually everybody believes that while these people are in jail they should not be tortured, but they also should not have all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy, and that their lives should, on the whole, be describable by the old concept known as hard time. The legislation I am introducing today will return sanity and State control to our prison systems. It will do so by limiting judicial remedies in prison cases and by limiting frivolous prisoner litigation. First, we must curtail interference by the Federal courts themselves in the orderly administration of our prisons. This is not to say that we will have no court relief available for prisoner suits, only that we will try to retain it for cases where it is needed while curtailing its destructive use. [[Page S 14317]] Most fundamentally, the proposed bill forbids courts from entering orders for prospective relief (such as regulating food temperatures) unless the order is necessary to correct violations of individual plaintiffs' Federal rights. It also requires that the relief be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means of protecting the federal rights. And it directs courts to give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system caused by the relief. No longer will prison administration be turned over to Federal judges for the slightest reason. Instead, the States will be able to run prisons as they see fit unless there is a constitutional violation, in which case a narrowly tailored order to correct the violation may be entered. The bill also will make it more difficult for judges to release dangerous criminals back into the population, or to prevent the authorities from incarcerating them in the first place. To accomplish this, the legislation forbids courts from entering release orders except under very limited circumstances. The court first must have entered an order for less intrusive relief, which must be shown to have failed to cure the violation of Federal rights. If a Federal court reaches this conclusion, it must refer the question of whether or not to issue a release order to a three judge district court. This court must find by clear and convincing evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right and that no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right. Then the court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the crowding had deprived particular plaintiffs of at least one essential, identifiable human need, and that prison officials have either deliberately subjected the plaintiffs to this deprivation or have been deliberately indifferent to it. As important, this legislation provides that any prospective relief order may be terminated on the motion of either party 2 years after the later of the grant of relief or the enactment of the bill. The court shall grant the termination unless it finds that the original prerequisites for granting it are present at that time. No longer, then, will we have consent decrees, such as those in Michigan under which judges control the prisons literally for decades. Finally, the bill contains several measures to reduce frivolous inmate litigation. The bill limits attorney's fee awards. In addition, prisoners no longer will be reimbursed for attorney's fees unless they prove an actual statutory violation. No longer will courts award attorney's fees simply because the prison has changed pre-existing conditions. Only if those conditions violated a prisoner's rights will fees be awarded. Prisoners who succeed in proving a statutory violation will be reimbursed only for fees directly and reasonably incurred in proving that violation. In addition, attorney's fees must be proportionally related to the court ordered relief. No longer will attorneys be allowed to charge massive amounts to the State for the service of correcting minimal violations. And no longer will attorneys be allowed to charge very high fees for their time. The fee must be calculated at an hourly rate no higher than that set for court appointed counsel. And up to 25 percent of any monetary award the court orders the plaintiff wins will go toward payment of the prisoner's attorney's fees. The bill also prohibits prisoners who have filed three frivolous or obviously nonmeritorious in forma pauperis civil actions from filing any more unless they are in imminent danger of severe bodily harm. Also, to keep prisoners from using lawsuits as an excuse to get out of jail for a time, pretrial hearings generally will be conducted by telephone, so that the prisoner stays in prison. Mr. President, these reforms will decrease the number of frivolous claims filed by prisoners. They will decrease prisoners' incentives to file suits over how bright their lights are. At the same time, they will discourage judges from seeking to take control over our prison systems, and to micromanage them, right down to the brightness of their lights. This is a far-reaching bill, Mr. President. One aimed at solving a complex, costly, and dangerous problem. Its several provisions will discourage frivolous lawsuits and promote State control over State prison systems. At the same time, this legislation will help protect convicted criminals' constitutional rights without releasing them to prey on an innocent public or keeping them in conditions so comfortable that they lose their deterrent effect. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that I believe is essential if we are to restore public confidence in government's ability to protect the public safety. Moreover, it will accomplish this purpose not by spending more taxpayer money but by saving it. This legislation removes enormous obstacles the Federal Government has placed in the path of States' and localities' ability to protect their residents. I would like to highlight three of these obstacles and explain what we are going to do to remove them. First, in many jurisdictions including my own State of Michigan, judicial orders entered under Federal law raise the costs of running prisons far beyond what is necessary. These orders also thereby undermine the legitimacy and punitive and deterrent effect of prison sentences. Second, in other jurisdictions, judicial orders entered under Federal law actually result in the release of dangerous criminals from prisons. Third, these orders are complemented by a veritable torrent of prisoner lawsuits. Although these suits are found non-meritorious the vast majority of the time (over 99 percent, for example, in the ninth circuit), they occupy an enormous amount of State and local time and resources; time and resources that would be better spent incarcerating more dangerous offenders. Let me start with the problems in my own State of Michigan. Under a series of judicial decrees resulting from Justice Department suits against the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Federal courts now monitor our State prisons to determine: 1. How warm the food is. 2. How bright the lights are. 3. Whether there are electrical outlets in each cell. 4. Whether windows are inspected and up to code. 5. Whether prisoners' hair is cut only by licensed barbers. 6. And whether air and water temperatures are comfortable. Elsewhere, American citizens are put at risk every day by court decrees. I have in mind particularly decrees that cure prison crowding by declaring that we must free dangerous criminals before they have served their time, or not incarcerate certain criminals at all because prisons are too crowded. The most egregious example is the city of Philadelphia. For the past 8 years, a Federal judge has been overseeing what has become a program of wholesale releases of up to 600 criminal defendants per week to keep the prison population down to what she considers an appropriate level. Under this order, there are no individualized bail hearings on a defendant's criminal history before deciding whether to release the defendant before trial. Instead, the only consideration is what the defendant is charged with the day of his or her arrest. No matter what the defendant has done before, even, for example, if he or she was previously convicted of murder, if the charge giving rise to the arrest is a non-violent crime, the defendant may not be held pretrial. Moreover, the so-called non-violent crimes include stalking, carjacking, robbery with a baseball bat, burglary, drug dealing, vehicular homicide, manslaughter, terroristic threats, and gun charges. As a result Philadelphia, which before the cap had about 18,000 outstanding bench warrants, now has almost 50,000. In reality, though, no one is out looking for these fugitives. Why look? If they were found, they would just be released back onto the streets under the prison cap. In the meantime thousands of defendants who were out on the streets because of the cap have been rearrested for new crimes, including 79 murders, 959 robberies, 2,215 drug dealing charges, 701 burglaries, 2,748 thefts, 90 rapes, and 1113 assaults. Looking at the same material from another vantage point: In 1993 and 1994, over 27,000 new bench warrants for misdemeanor and felony charges were issued for defendants released under the cap. That's 63 percent of all new bench warrants in 1993 and 74 percent of all new bench warrants for the first 6 months of 1994. Failure to appear rates for crimes covered by the cap are all around 70 percent, as opposed to, for example, non-covered crimes like aggravated assault, where the rate is just 3 percent. The Philadelphia fugitive rate for defendants charged with drug dealing is 76 percent, three times the national rate. Over 100 persons in Philadelphia have been killed by criminals set free under the prison cap. Moreover, the citizenry has understandably lost confidence in the criminal justice system's ability to protect them. And the criminals, on the other hand, have every reason to believe that the system can't do anything about them. All of this would be bad enough if it were the result of a court order to correct serious constitutional violations committed by the Philadelphia corrections system. But it is not. Indeed, a different Federal judge recently found that conditions in Philadelphia's oldest and most decrepit facility--Holmesburg Prison-- met constitutional standards. These murderous early releases are the result of a consent decree entered into by the prior mayoral administration from which the current administration has been unable to extricate itself. Finally, in addition to massive judicial interventions in State prison systems, we also have frivolous inmate litigation brought under Federal law; this litigation also ties up enormous resources. Thirty- three States have estimated that Federal inmate suits cost them at least $54.5 million annually. The National Association of Attorneys General have extrapolated that number to conclude that nationwide the costs are at least $81.3 million. Since, according to their information, more than 95 percent of these suits are dismissed without the inmate receiving anything, the vast majority of the $81.3 million being spent is attributable to non-meritorious cases. Mr. President, in my opinion this is all wrong. People deserve to keep their tax dollars or have them spent on projects they approve. They deserve better than to have their money spent, on keeping prisoners in conditions some Federal judge feels are desirable (although not required by any provision of the Constitution or any law). And they certainly don't need it spent on defending against frivolous prisoner lawsuits. And convicted criminals, while they must be accorded their constitution rights, deserve to be punished. I think virtually everybody believes that while these people are in jail they should not be tortured, but they also should not have all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy, and that their lives should, on the whole, be describable by the old concept known as hard time. The legislation I am introducing today will return sanity and State control to our prison systems. It will do so by limiting judicial remedies in prison cases and by limiting frivolous prisoner litigation. First, we must curtail interference by the Federal courts themselves in the orderly administration of our prisons. This is not to say that we will have no court relief available for prisoner suits, only that we will try to retain it for cases where it is needed while curtailing its destructive use. [[Page S 14317]] Most fundamentally, the proposed bill forbids courts from entering orders for prospective relief (such as regulating food temperatures) unless the order is necessary to correct violations of individual plaintiffs' Federal rights. It also requires that the relief be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means of protecting the federal rights. And it directs courts to give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system caused by the relief. No longer will prison administration be turned over to Federal judges for the slightest reason. Instead, the States will be able to run prisons as they see fit unless there is a constitutional violation, in which case a narrowly tailored order to correct the violation may be entered. The bill also will make it more difficult for judges to release dangerous criminals back into the population, or to prevent the authorities from incarcerating them in the first place. To accomplish this, the legislation forbids courts from entering release orders except under very limited circumstances. The court first must have entered an order for less intrusive relief, which must be shown to have failed to cure the violation of Federal rights. If a Federal court reaches this conclusion, it must refer the question of whether or not to issue a release order to a three judge district court. This court must find by clear and convincing evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right and that no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right. Then the court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the crowding had deprived particular plaintiffs of at least one essential, identifiable human need, and that prison officials have either deliberately subjected the plaintiffs to this deprivation or have been deliberately indifferent to it. As important, this legislation provides that any prospective relief order may be terminated on the motion of either party 2 years after the later of the grant of relief or the enactment of the bill. The court shall grant the termination unless it finds that the original prerequisites for granting it are present at that time. No longer, then, will we have consent decrees, such as those in Michigan under which judges control the prisons literally for decades. Finally, the bill contains several measures to reduce frivolous inmate litigation. The bill limits attorney's fee awards. In addition, prisoners no longer will be reimbursed for attorney's fees unless they prove an actual statutory violation. No longer will courts award attorney's fees simply because the prison has changed pre-existing conditions. Only if those conditions violated a prisoner's rights will fees be awarded. Prisoners who succeed in proving a statutory violation will be reimbursed only for fees directly and reasonably incurred in proving that violation. In addition, attorney's fees must be proportionally related to the court ordered relief. No longer will attorneys be allowed to charge massive amounts to the State for the service of correcting minimal violations. And no longer will attorneys be allowed to charge very high fees for their time. The fee must be calculated at an hourly rate no higher than that set for court appointed counsel. And up to 25 percent of any monetary award the court orders the plaintiff wins will go toward payment of the prisoner's attorney's fees. The bill also prohibits prisoners who have filed three frivolous or obviously nonmeritorious in forma pauperis civil actions from filing any more unless they are in imminent danger of severe bodily harm. Also, to keep prisoners from using lawsuits as an excuse to get out of jail for a time, pretrial hearings generally will be conducted by telephone, so that the prisoner stays in prison. Mr. President, these reforms will decrease the number of frivolous claims filed by prisoners. They will decrease prisoners' incentives to file suits over how bright their lights are. At the same time, they will discourage judges from seeking to take control over our prison systems, and to micromanage them, right down to the brightness of their lights. This is a far-reaching bill, Mr. President. One aimed at solving a complex, costly, and dangerous problem. Its several provisions will discourage frivolous lawsuits and promote State control over State prison systems. At the same time, this legislation will help protect convicted criminals' constitutional rights without releasing them to prey on an innocent public or keeping them in conditions so comfortable that they lose their deterrent effect. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the week of November 26-December 2 as International Children's Wish Week. Children's Wish Foundation International, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Atlanta, GA, has expressed as its mission to provide seriously ill children of every origin, race, creed, religion, or economic status the experience of a lifetime by fulfilling his or her favorite wish; and Children's Wish Foundation International includes the immediate family in the wish experience in order to provide them with special memories to help counter the last images of doctors, hospitals, and suffering; and Children's Wish Foundation International has provided invaluable wish experiences for seriously ill children of the State of Michigan; and International Children's Wish Week will provide a forum to publicly acknowledge the courage of these children and their families while giving others the opportunity to become involved with this important cause. I cannot think of a more meritorious undertaking; this organization is focused on bringing the wonders of life to those whose daily living is in question. The efforts of the Children's Wish Foundation have well earned this special recognition. Therefore, I hope the people of Michigan will join me in recognizing November 26-December 2, 1995 as International Children's Wish Week in our State.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of U.S. aid to our strongest allies in the Middle East: Israel and Egypt. I believe foreign aid should be dispensed only when and where it is in America's national interest, and H.R. 1868, the foreign operations, export financing and related appropriations bill of 1996, meets those criteria. H.R. 1868 authorizes $3 billion for Israel, including $1.8 billion in military assistance and $1.2 billion in economic aid; and $2.12 billion for Egypt--$1.3 billion in military aid and $815,000 in economic assistance. Mr. President I believe support for Israel and Egypt furthers our goal of supporting countries that defend and advance America's interests. The Middle East is an incredibly volatile region and events that transpire there have major implications for the United States. Both Israel and Egypt help protect our strategic interests in that part of the world and for this reason they deserve our continued support. Now is not the time to abandon our friends, but rather the time to assist them as they face many of the same challenges we do as we strive to promote stability in the post-cold war world. The Middle East has witnessed historic changes that seemed unimaginable only 5 years ago: the collapse of the Soviet Union has removed the most powerful supporter of rogue nations in the region; the United States, with Egypt's crucial involvement, led an international coalition in a successful effort during the Persian Gulf War; political and economic relations were established between Israel and Morocco, Tunisia, and many other countries around the world; bilateral negotiations were initiated between Israel and some of her most ardent enemies; an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was formalized; and a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan was signed. But despite these developments and achievements, the Middle East is still among the most dangerous regions in the world. Instability in the Middle East is contrary to our national security interests because it threatens the supply of oil, which could create a crisis the likes of which the people of Western Europe and America have experienced before. It could also threaten our access to the Suez Canal and increase the influence of terrorist regimes. And this instability could resurface at any time. Parties opposed to the peace process have sought to undermine it. Economic underdevelopment in many countries breeds political instability and even violence. In order to minimize these dangers while continuing to build on historic accomplishments in the region, United States support for Israel and Egypt is as critical today as ever. Both Israel and Egypt stand firmly with us in countering these threats. The joint military exercises the United States conducts with Israel promote American goals in the region by solidifying a cooperative strategic plan which can be quickly implemented. Dozens of American weapons systems, including the Patriot missile and the F-15 fighter, have been improved with Israeli technological innovations. The Arrow missile program, which has been a joint American-Israeli project, should some day help America and our allies protect ourselves against ballistic missile attacks. I should also point out that aid to Israel is used primarily to purchase United States-made military equipment. Similarly, joint United States-Egyptian military exercises have proven fruitful in such coordinated efforts as Desert Shield and Desert Storm. As the United States assists in maintaining the efficiency of the Egyptian armed forces, these forces can continue to protect and enhance our interests in the region. Furthermore, Egypt purchases over 85 percent of its military equipment from the United States, including the M1A1 tanks. Mr. President, we must authorize these funding levels not only because it makes sense when considering our strategic goals in the Middle East, but also because it is consistent with our objectives in the ongoing peace process. As the chief sponsor of both past and current peace negotiations, the United States should maintain its leadership role in pursuing peace in the region by continuing its unequivocal support for Israel and Egypt. Peaceful resolutions to Middle East conflicts will promote stability in this important part of the world. The provisions of this aid package are, in my view, well structured to serve the interests of Americans, Israelis and Egyptians. Additionally, H.R. 1868 provides funding for the United States to assist the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as they develop their economy and strive to accomplish peace in the region. In my view, the United States should help lead an international community effort to stimulate private investment in Gaza and Jericho, including the continuation of a free-trade agreement and the development of industrial parks. Such initiatives can drive economic growth for the Palestinians. A stronger economy in turn will ultimately help produce peaceful self-rule. Mr. President, l believe we must continue to assist nations which serve our interests by promoting stability in a volatile region. I am hopeful that ultimately there will be a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, because I believe aid to Israel and Egypt, as well as to the Palestinians, is a small price to help attain paramount international goal of the United States--permanent stability and peace in the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. For 30 years we have tried to fight the war against poverty and after 30 years, poverty is winning that war. We talk about helping children, yet today more people are below the poverty line than when we began the war on poverty--most of them children. It is hard to argue that the programs that have been in effect are the ones that help children when you see the results of those programs up close, as we do in my State of Michigan. The last few years, through waivers, we had more flexibility in our State and we have been able to address many of the welfare problems much more effectively than any other State in the country. This bill gives all States the kind of flexibility to deal with these problems the way we are dealing with them in Michigan. I believe it will succeed in moving more people to work and helping more children than the present system possibly could allow. Mr. President, this bill also addresses, I think for the first time, the illegitimacy problem in this country. It may not go as far as some would like but takes an important first step in that direction. And, above all, I think by requiring tough work sanctions, it finally places the welfare debate, I think, where most persons would like to see it, where people who are the beneficiaries of Federal support and State support perform some type of community service or work in order to make a contribution to the process. As a result, I think the majority leader deserves great credit for what he has done in 9 short months here. We have really ended business as usual. When we pass this bill today, we will be saying business as usual in welfare is over. Thank you, Mr. President,

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Due in part to past CSREES Special Research Grant support, MSU/MBI has succeeded in creating five new companies using agricultural technologies. One company was created to market a new biodegradable plastic resin for applications such as plastic knives, forks and spoons used in fast food establishments. The new resin has all the benefits of conventional petroleum-based technology but you can throw it away and it will decompose without adding to our nation's landfills. This research has created new companies, new jobs, and increased Michigan's tax base. I strongly support these efforts.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Lieberman, Santorum, DeWine, and Moseley-Braun in introducing the Enhanced Enterprise Zone Act of 1995, legislation to stimulate job creation and residential growth in America's most distressed rural and urban communities. In 1980, then-Representative Jack Kemp introduced the first enterprise zone legislation in the United States, the Urban Jobs and Enterprise Zone Act. Twelve years later, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 authorized over 100 enterprise and empowerment zones to receive a limited combination of tax benefits and other Federal assistance to support economic revitalization and community development. For truly distressed communities, however, there is concern that this package of benefits will not be sufficient to spur economic growth and job creation. This concern was reaffirmed by the Senate earlier this week during consideration of S. 4, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995. On Wednesday, September 13, the Senate unanimously adopted an amendment calling on Congress to enact enterprise zone legislation that includes stronger incentives for investment, job creation, and economic growth. At a time when Congress is debating the merits of the Federal welfare system and looking at reforms to our social safety net, it is imperative that we look for ways to stimulate new opportunities for work and growth in our most distressed neighborhoods. For that reason, today my colleagues and I are introducing legislation to supercharge existing enterprise communities and empowerment zones. These enhanced enterprise zones would encourage entrepreneurial and residential activity by: Establishing a capital gains rate of zero for the sale of any qualified investments that are held for at least 5 years; Permitting limited income deductions for the purchase of qualified stock in businesses located in an enterprise zone; Doubling the amount small business owners in these zones are allowed to expense; Providing a limited tax credit for low-income renovations; Loosening regulatory barriers to home ownership and job creation; Providing incentives and grants for resident management and home ownership of public housing; and Creating a pilot school choice program for the existing empowerment zones, supplemental empowerment zones, and Washington, DC. Mr. President, for economically troubled areas, attracting entrepreneurial businesses is the key to beginning the process of revitalization. The tax benefits of enhanced enterprise zones are targeted at addressing the principal hurdles facing small businesses when they are just getting started--raising capital and maintaining cash flow. First, we eliminate taxation on capital gains. The United States has some of the highest capital gains taxes in the world. For distressed communities seeking capital investments, these taxes inhibit investment and lockout sources of growth. Our bill establishes a capital gains rate of zero for the sale of any qualified zone stock, business property, or partnership interest that has been held for at least 5 years. Second, we encourage investment in enterprise zones through the creation of enterprise zone stock. Ask small business entrepreneurs what their biggest hurdle is, and chances are they will reply--raising capital. This legislation allows individuals to deduct the purchase of qualified enterprise zone stock from their income--up to $100,000 in one year and $500,000 in their lifetime. Third, we provide small enterprise zone businesses with extra expensing. Another obstacle particularly difficult [[Page S 13738]] for small businesses to overcome is maintaining an adequate cash flow. Our legislation would double the maximum allowable expensing for purchases of plant and equipment in the enterprise zones. Fourth, we encourage the renovation of deteriorated buildings located in the enterprise zones. This proposal is based upon legislation introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and it is designed to encourage private investment in economically distressed areas by providing a targeted, limited tax credit to businesses to help defray their cost of construction, expansion, and renovation of buildings located within enhanced enterprise zones. Another obstacle to growth and jobs in distressed communities is the burden of regulation on small businesses. Our bill would create a process by which local governments could request a waiver or modification of regulations that hinder the job creation, community development, or economic revitalization objectives of the enterprise zone. The relevant Federal agencies would have the discretion to approve or disapprove of any regulatory waiver or modification. Furthermore, they would be prohibited from granting regulatory waivers that would violate the Fair Labor Standards Act or present a significant risk to public health, safety, or the environment. To help low-income families become homeowners with a stake in their communities, our legislation would establish an Enterprise Zone Home Ownership Program. Based upon Jack Kemp's proposals when he was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, this proposal would provide grants for: First, resident management of public housing; and second, home ownership of public housing, vacant and foreclosed properties, and financially distressed properties. Finally, within the nine empowerment zones, two supplemental empowerment zones, and Washington, DC, our bill would create a pilot school choice project to provide low-income parents and their children with financial assistance to enable them to select the public or private school of their choice. Under this plan, a designated grantee within each empowerment zone will provide parents with educational certificates to be used towards the cost of tuition and transportation for elementary or secondary schools within the empowerment zones. In conclusion, Mr. President, will enhanced enterprise zones work? The answer, quite simply, is yes. We know they will work because 35 States and the District of Columbia already have enterprise zones that have produced over 663,000 jobs and $40 billion in capital investment. The enterprise zone concept has been endorsed by the National Governor's Association, the Conference of Black Mayors, the Council of Black State Legislators, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. This bill represents an affirmative effort to create economic opportunities for the urban and rural poor by recognizing that private enterprise, not government, is the source of economic and social development. Taken as a whole, the incentives included in this legislation for investment, entrepreneurship, home ownership, and skill development will being economies in distressed areas back to life. They will encourage full participation in our market economy and public interest in local neighborhoods--resulting in economic growth and new jobs.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am today introducing two bills, both of which address one of the most serious problems facing this country today: the epidemic of drugs in our Nation. The purpose of each bill is simple. The first bill would prevent reductions in crack cocaine penalties proposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission from taking effect. The second would raise the penalties for distributors of powder cocaine by applying existing mandatory minimums to a larger group of cocaine dealers. No problem has parents more worried than the drugs and violence so prevalent today in schools throughout the Nation. All of us spend a lot of time fretting about how to protect our kids and keep them from getting caught up in drugs and gangs and the terrible dangers they create. Nevertheless, on April 11, by a 4 to 3 vote, the Sentencing Commission proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines dealing with crack distribution and possession. According to the Department of Justice, the effect of these amendments would be to lower base sentences dramatically for criminals who deal in crack cocaine. New sentences for these criminals would be between one-half and one-sixth their present length. Some drug dealers now subject to substantial prison sentences could end up serving no jailtime at all. In my judgment, this sends entirely the wrong message: that in the war against crack, society has blinked. That is not what we should be telling the crack dealers. That is not what we should be telling concerned parents across this Nation. And that is not what we should be telling the brave law-abiding members of our communities who are fighting back against the crack dealers. Accordingly, the first bill I am introducing simply says: This shall not happen. It blocks these guideline changes, changes that otherwise would automatically become effective on November 1. The principal reason the Sentencing Commission gave for lowering sentences for crack dealing was fairness. The Commission was concerned that a powder cocaine dealer has to distribute 100 times more powder cocaine than a crack dealer to receive the same sentence as the crack dealer. The Commission believes that this disparity creates a perception of unfairness because a substantial majority of convicted crack dealers are African-Americans, whereas a majority of convicted powder dealers are not. It further believes that the solution to this [[Page S 13739]] perception is to drastically lower crack sentences. I believe the Commission is wrong on two scores. First, the Commission itself has given several strong reasons why it is entirely legitimate for our laws to punish crack distribution more severely than distribution of powder cocaine, and there are some reasons even beyond those the Commission gave. Second, there is some basis for believing that the differential in the sentences may be too great. But the answer is not to lower the crack sentences. The answer is to toughen the powder sentences. That is what I am proposing in the second bill I am introducing today. As to the first point: The Commission itself, in a report issued just this February, recognized that there is a strong foundation for Congress' original decision to punish distributors of crack more severely than distributors of powder cocaine. That is a judgment every U.S. Court of Appeals that has considered the question has shared. As the Commission explained, crack is more addictive, provides a more intense high, is easier to use, does greater harm, and is associated with greater violence than simple powder. Though powder cocaine and crack contain the same active ingredient, the cocaine alkaloid, crack is far more attractive and addictive. This is primarily because crack is easily smoked while powder is injected or snorted. Smoking is one of the quickest methods of maximizing the drugs effects. The quicker the cocaine reaches the brain, the greater the effect, the shorter the effects duration and the greater the likelihood cocaine use will lead to dependence and abuse. Furthermore, somebody who has never used drugs before is much more likely to try a drug by smoking it than by injecting it. It is unpleasant and requires some expertise to inject oneself with a foreign substance. Smoking seems casual and easy. Therefore it is no surprise that three times more people smoke cocaine than inject it. Crack is also associated with systemic violence to a greater degree than powder cocaine. Use and distribution of crack are also associated more generally with enhanced criminal activity of all types. Crack is also more dangerous in other ways. It produces more medical emergencies than snorting powder or injecting cocaine. And it is sold in small quantities at affordable, even cheap, prices--making it easier for small kids to get and use. In short, crack is a very dangerous drug. The response it calls for is surely not to lower penalties for the people who distribute it to one-half to one-sixth their present length. The second reason the Sentencing Commission's reasoning is unsound is that differential treatment of crack and powder cocaine is far from unique in drug sentencing. To the contrary, in other instances as well we treat source and derivative drugs differently in terms of the quantities an individual must distribute to trigger the same sentence. For example, a distributor of a given amount of heroin--a derivative of opium just as crack is a derivative of powder cocaine--gets the same sentence as somebody who has distributed 20 times that amount of opium. Similarly, a distributor of smokeable methamphetamine, or ice, gets the same sentence as somebody who has distributed ten times that amount of regular methamphetamine. Third, the Commission's proposed changes are incompatible with the statutory mandatory minimum sentences that Congress has established for distribution of crack cocaine. Congress set the trigger amounts based on its view of the seriousness of the crack epidemic and the key role played by retail distributors. Congress deliberately decided that Federal enforcement should focus on both traffickers in high places in the processing or distribution chain and the managers of retail level traffic. Congress thought both were serious traffickers because they keep the street markets going. The Commission recognized when it forwarded its amendments to the Congress that they are inconsistent with present law. Rather than adjusting its guidelines to conform with congressional directives, however, as has always previously been its practice, the Commission has instead elected to change the guidelines and ask Congress that it adjust the laws to accommodate the Commission's views. Finally, and most importantly, the Commission's solution to this unfairness is in fact quite unfair to the law abiding citizens everywhere trying to fight back against crack dealers. And many of these antidrug activists themselves are African-Americans. The Commission's proposals are not fair to the children in schools wracked by drug-induced violence. They are not fair to those children's parents, who want the Government to use every tool it can to protect their kids. And they are not fair to the vast majority of people living in communities, like Detroit, trying as hard as they can to defend their neighborhoods against unceasing attacks by crack dealers. The last thing most of these people want is for the Federal Government to relax its efforts in combatting the scourge of crack. That is not to say that I have no sympathy with the Sentencing Commission's concern that the higher crack sentences create a perception of unfairness. I am particularly troubled because present law has resulted, at least occasionally, in insufficiently severe punishment of kingpins at the top of crack distribution chains when compared with punishments meted out to retail dealers. The problem is that some of these kingpins take the precaution of distributing their product in powder rather than in crack form. Because of where the powder triggers are set, some of these individuals have received considerably less than the mandatory 5 year penalty even while the retail distributors, who are distributing the final product, are receiving at least 5 year sentences. As I said before, though, in my view, however, the answer to these problems is not to lower the crack sentences. Instead we should toughen the powder sentences. That is why the second bill I am introducing proposes to raise sentences for powder distribution by making the triggers for mandatory minimums 100 grams for 5 years and 1,000 grams for 10 years, rather than 500 and 5,000 as they are now. That would also mean that the quantity ratio for powder and crack would be 20 to 1, the same as the one between opium and its very dangerous and addictive derivative heroin. I am pleased that I have been joined in the effort to block the crack guideline changes by a number of distinguished colleagues, including my good friend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Hatch, the former chairman of that committee, Senator Thurmond, and Senators Grassley, Kyl, Feinstein, and Shelby. The Department of Justice likewise opposes the Sentencing Commission's proposals and has asked Congress to block them. It is my firm expectation that the Congress will act promptly on this measure to prevent these changes from taking effect on November 1. I also will ask the Congress to take up in short order my proposal to toughen the sentences for powder dealers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in promoting tough, fair sentences for all drug dealers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Lieberman, Santorum, DeWine, and Moseley-Braun in introducing the Enhanced Enterprise Zone Act of 1995, legislation to stimulate job creation and residential growth in America's most distressed rural and urban communities. In 1980, then-Representative Jack Kemp introduced the first enterprise zone legislation in the United States, the Urban Jobs and Enterprise Zone Act. Twelve years later, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 authorized over 100 enterprise and empowerment zones to receive a limited combination of tax benefits and other Federal assistance to support economic revitalization and community development. For truly distressed communities, however, there is concern that this package of benefits will not be sufficient to spur economic growth and job creation. This concern was reaffirmed by the Senate earlier this week during consideration of S. 4, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995. On Wednesday, September 13, the Senate unanimously adopted an amendment calling on Congress to enact enterprise zone legislation that includes stronger incentives for investment, job creation, and economic growth. At a time when Congress is debating the merits of the Federal welfare system and looking at reforms to our social safety net, it is imperative that we look for ways to stimulate new opportunities for work and growth in our most distressed neighborhoods. For that reason, today my colleagues and I are introducing legislation to supercharge existing enterprise communities and empowerment zones. These enhanced enterprise zones would encourage entrepreneurial and residential activity by: Establishing a capital gains rate of zero for the sale of any qualified investments that are held for at least 5 years; Permitting limited income deductions for the purchase of qualified stock in businesses located in an enterprise zone; Doubling the amount small business owners in these zones are allowed to expense; Providing a limited tax credit for low-income renovations; Loosening regulatory barriers to home ownership and job creation; Providing incentives and grants for resident management and home ownership of public housing; and Creating a pilot school choice program for the existing empowerment zones, supplemental empowerment zones, and Washington, DC. Mr. President, for economically troubled areas, attracting entrepreneurial businesses is the key to beginning the process of revitalization. The tax benefits of enhanced enterprise zones are targeted at addressing the principal hurdles facing small businesses when they are just getting started--raising capital and maintaining cash flow. First, we eliminate taxation on capital gains. The United States has some of the highest capital gains taxes in the world. For distressed communities seeking capital investments, these taxes inhibit investment and lockout sources of growth. Our bill establishes a capital gains rate of zero for the sale of any qualified zone stock, business property, or partnership interest that has been held for at least 5 years. Second, we encourage investment in enterprise zones through the creation of enterprise zone stock. Ask small business entrepreneurs what their biggest hurdle is, and chances are they will reply--raising capital. This legislation allows individuals to deduct the purchase of qualified enterprise zone stock from their income--up to $100,000 in one year and $500,000 in their lifetime. Third, we provide small enterprise zone businesses with extra expensing. Another obstacle particularly difficult [[Page S 13738]] for small businesses to overcome is maintaining an adequate cash flow. Our legislation would double the maximum allowable expensing for purchases of plant and equipment in the enterprise zones. Fourth, we encourage the renovation of deteriorated buildings located in the enterprise zones. This proposal is based upon legislation introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and it is designed to encourage private investment in economically distressed areas by providing a targeted, limited tax credit to businesses to help defray their cost of construction, expansion, and renovation of buildings located within enhanced enterprise zones. Another obstacle to growth and jobs in distressed communities is the burden of regulation on small businesses. Our bill would create a process by which local governments could request a waiver or modification of regulations that hinder the job creation, community development, or economic revitalization objectives of the enterprise zone. The relevant Federal agencies would have the discretion to approve or disapprove of any regulatory waiver or modification. Furthermore, they would be prohibited from granting regulatory waivers that would violate the Fair Labor Standards Act or present a significant risk to public health, safety, or the environment. To help low-income families become homeowners with a stake in their communities, our legislation would establish an Enterprise Zone Home Ownership Program. Based upon Jack Kemp's proposals when he was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, this proposal would provide grants for: First, resident management of public housing; and second, home ownership of public housing, vacant and foreclosed properties, and financially distressed properties. Finally, within the nine empowerment zones, two supplemental empowerment zones, and Washington, DC, our bill would create a pilot school choice project to provide low-income parents and their children with financial assistance to enable them to select the public or private school of their choice. Under this plan, a designated grantee within each empowerment zone will provide parents with educational certificates to be used towards the cost of tuition and transportation for elementary or secondary schools within the empowerment zones. In conclusion, Mr. President, will enhanced enterprise zones work? The answer, quite simply, is yes. We know they will work because 35 States and the District of Columbia already have enterprise zones that have produced over 663,000 jobs and $40 billion in capital investment. The enterprise zone concept has been endorsed by the National Governor's Association, the Conference of Black Mayors, the Council of Black State Legislators, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. This bill represents an affirmative effort to create economic opportunities for the urban and rural poor by recognizing that private enterprise, not government, is the source of economic and social development. Taken as a whole, the incentives included in this legislation for investment, entrepreneurship, home ownership, and skill development will being economies in distressed areas back to life. They will encourage full participation in our market economy and public interest in local neighborhoods--resulting in economic growth and new jobs.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am today introducing two bills, both of which address one of the most serious problems facing this country today: the epidemic of drugs in our Nation. The purpose of each bill is simple. The first bill would prevent reductions in crack cocaine penalties proposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission from taking effect. The second would raise the penalties for distributors of powder cocaine by applying existing mandatory minimums to a larger group of cocaine dealers. No problem has parents more worried than the drugs and violence so prevalent today in schools throughout the Nation. All of us spend a lot of time fretting about how to protect our kids and keep them from getting caught up in drugs and gangs and the terrible dangers they create. Nevertheless, on April 11, by a 4 to 3 vote, the Sentencing Commission proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines dealing with crack distribution and possession. According to the Department of Justice, the effect of these amendments would be to lower base sentences dramatically for criminals who deal in crack cocaine. New sentences for these criminals would be between one-half and one-sixth their present length. Some drug dealers now subject to substantial prison sentences could end up serving no jailtime at all. In my judgment, this sends entirely the wrong message: that in the war against crack, society has blinked. That is not what we should be telling the crack dealers. That is not what we should be telling concerned parents across this Nation. And that is not what we should be telling the brave law-abiding members of our communities who are fighting back against the crack dealers. Accordingly, the first bill I am introducing simply says: This shall not happen. It blocks these guideline changes, changes that otherwise would automatically become effective on November 1. The principal reason the Sentencing Commission gave for lowering sentences for crack dealing was fairness. The Commission was concerned that a powder cocaine dealer has to distribute 100 times more powder cocaine than a crack dealer to receive the same sentence as the crack dealer. The Commission believes that this disparity creates a perception of unfairness because a substantial majority of convicted crack dealers are African-Americans, whereas a majority of convicted powder dealers are not. It further believes that the solution to this [[Page S 13739]] perception is to drastically lower crack sentences. I believe the Commission is wrong on two scores. First, the Commission itself has given several strong reasons why it is entirely legitimate for our laws to punish crack distribution more severely than distribution of powder cocaine, and there are some reasons even beyond those the Commission gave. Second, there is some basis for believing that the differential in the sentences may be too great. But the answer is not to lower the crack sentences. The answer is to toughen the powder sentences. That is what I am proposing in the second bill I am introducing today. As to the first point: The Commission itself, in a report issued just this February, recognized that there is a strong foundation for Congress' original decision to punish distributors of crack more severely than distributors of powder cocaine. That is a judgment every U.S. Court of Appeals that has considered the question has shared. As the Commission explained, crack is more addictive, provides a more intense high, is easier to use, does greater harm, and is associated with greater violence than simple powder. Though powder cocaine and crack contain the same active ingredient, the cocaine alkaloid, crack is far more attractive and addictive. This is primarily because crack is easily smoked while powder is injected or snorted. Smoking is one of the quickest methods of maximizing the drugs effects. The quicker the cocaine reaches the brain, the greater the effect, the shorter the effects duration and the greater the likelihood cocaine use will lead to dependence and abuse. Furthermore, somebody who has never used drugs before is much more likely to try a drug by smoking it than by injecting it. It is unpleasant and requires some expertise to inject oneself with a foreign substance. Smoking seems casual and easy. Therefore it is no surprise that three times more people smoke cocaine than inject it. Crack is also associated with systemic violence to a greater degree than powder cocaine. Use and distribution of crack are also associated more generally with enhanced criminal activity of all types. Crack is also more dangerous in other ways. It produces more medical emergencies than snorting powder or injecting cocaine. And it is sold in small quantities at affordable, even cheap, prices--making it easier for small kids to get and use. In short, crack is a very dangerous drug. The response it calls for is surely not to lower penalties for the people who distribute it to one-half to one-sixth their present length. The second reason the Sentencing Commission's reasoning is unsound is that differential treatment of crack and powder cocaine is far from unique in drug sentencing. To the contrary, in other instances as well we treat source and derivative drugs differently in terms of the quantities an individual must distribute to trigger the same sentence. For example, a distributor of a given amount of heroin--a derivative of opium just as crack is a derivative of powder cocaine--gets the same sentence as somebody who has distributed 20 times that amount of opium. Similarly, a distributor of smokeable methamphetamine, or ice, gets the same sentence as somebody who has distributed ten times that amount of regular methamphetamine. Third, the Commission's proposed changes are incompatible with the statutory mandatory minimum sentences that Congress has established for distribution of crack cocaine. Congress set the trigger amounts based on its view of the seriousness of the crack epidemic and the key role played by retail distributors. Congress deliberately decided that Federal enforcement should focus on both traffickers in high places in the processing or distribution chain and the managers of retail level traffic. Congress thought both were serious traffickers because they keep the street markets going. The Commission recognized when it forwarded its amendments to the Congress that they are inconsistent with present law. Rather than adjusting its guidelines to conform with congressional directives, however, as has always previously been its practice, the Commission has instead elected to change the guidelines and ask Congress that it adjust the laws to accommodate the Commission's views. Finally, and most importantly, the Commission's solution to this unfairness is in fact quite unfair to the law abiding citizens everywhere trying to fight back against crack dealers. And many of these antidrug activists themselves are African-Americans. The Commission's proposals are not fair to the children in schools wracked by drug-induced violence. They are not fair to those children's parents, who want the Government to use every tool it can to protect their kids. And they are not fair to the vast majority of people living in communities, like Detroit, trying as hard as they can to defend their neighborhoods against unceasing attacks by crack dealers. The last thing most of these people want is for the Federal Government to relax its efforts in combatting the scourge of crack. That is not to say that I have no sympathy with the Sentencing Commission's concern that the higher crack sentences create a perception of unfairness. I am particularly troubled because present law has resulted, at least occasionally, in insufficiently severe punishment of kingpins at the top of crack distribution chains when compared with punishments meted out to retail dealers. The problem is that some of these kingpins take the precaution of distributing their product in powder rather than in crack form. Because of where the powder triggers are set, some of these individuals have received considerably less than the mandatory 5 year penalty even while the retail distributors, who are distributing the final product, are receiving at least 5 year sentences. As I said before, though, in my view, however, the answer to these problems is not to lower the crack sentences. Instead we should toughen the powder sentences. That is why the second bill I am introducing proposes to raise sentences for powder distribution by making the triggers for mandatory minimums 100 grams for 5 years and 1,000 grams for 10 years, rather than 500 and 5,000 as they are now. That would also mean that the quantity ratio for powder and crack would be 20 to 1, the same as the one between opium and its very dangerous and addictive derivative heroin. I am pleased that I have been joined in the effort to block the crack guideline changes by a number of distinguished colleagues, including my good friend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Hatch, the former chairman of that committee, Senator Thurmond, and Senators Grassley, Kyl, Feinstein, and Shelby. The Department of Justice likewise opposes the Sentencing Commission's proposals and has asked Congress to block them. It is my firm expectation that the Congress will act promptly on this measure to prevent these changes from taking effect on November 1. I also will ask the Congress to take up in short order my proposal to toughen the sentences for powder dealers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in promoting tough, fair sentences for all drug dealers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer recognition to my summer interns, who have dedicated their time and effort this summer, serving the people of Michigan on my behalf. In an era when cynicism about our Government and the political process runs rampant, they have maintained an optimistic view of our Government, and have made considerable sacrifices so that they could play a more active role in the American political system. They were of great help to us this summer and I am grateful for their service. In appreciation of their hard work and dedication, I submit a list of their names, and ask that it be printed in the Record. The list follows: Lisa Maria Carroll, Nathan E. Clukey, Christopher DeMuth, Hope Durant, Michael J. Earle, Robert Glazier, John Iakovides, Thomas Marshall, Danny Mayer, Denise Mills, Michael Mikelic, Ryan O'Donovan, Stephen V. Potenza, Barry Regan, John Sanke, Sergio Santiviago, Nedda Shayota, Joseph A. Snearline, Matthew J. Suhr, Courtenay Youngblood, Paul Yu. Mr. President, these fine young men and women performed valuable service assisting with legislative research, front office support, and playing for my expansion softball team. Like all expansion teams, this year was a rebuilding year. Our team's record may not have been the greatest, Mr. President, but without the interns, I would have had no softball team. On a more serious note Mr. President, it is my belief that a congressional internship is the best and most effective way to learn firsthand about the governmental process. Our interns are given the chance to observe and participate in all kinds of activities essential to the workings of the Senate. From committee markups to floor speeches and votes, to the daily workings of the office, they have been given a diverse and extensive lesson in the governmental process. It is a lesson that, regardless of their future ambitions, will remain with them throughout the course of their lives.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, if this amendment succeeds, we will have nothing left in this bill geared to the problem of illegitimacy that virtually every Member of this Senate has talked about and described is a problem in their State. This portion of the bill creates incentives for States to attack this issue head on. I believe the criticisms, although well intentioned, do not justify turning our backs on this problem. The fact that it may cost more if States across America, every single State brings down its illegitimacy rate, it may cost $1 billion more in bonuses, does not reflect the total price tag and the success we would have if this were to be achieved. The fact is this is a priority issue. It deserves, in terms of our funding priorities, to be placed high on the priority list. If we succeed, I think we will save more in dollars and lives than any bonuses we will pay to the States. Further, I think some of the concerns that have been raised as to definitions are addressed in the legislation as it has been brought to the floor. The Secretary has given quite a bit of latitude to determine definitions as well as to determine whether or not the numbers have been in any way gained in order to allow States to capture advantage of the bonus undeservedly. Finally, I just would say if we strip this provision from the bill, we will have to go back and explain to our constituents why we did not do one significant thing to address the No. 1 social problem in America today. Arguments in favor of this amendment do not, in my judgment, justify turning our backs on this issue. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.